The less technology, the better the photograph?

[premo]

In 1948, when I was 10 years old, my grandfather gave me his old speed graphic, and a film pack of ansco super press ortho. His comment on seeing the results: hmm, better give you one sheet film holder so that you will slow down and think more about what you are shooting. Well that worked, pictures improved (but still not "good"). But I learned f-stops vs shutter speed, and depth of field with the old girl eventually. He must have thought I was making progress, as I got a Weston meter for Christmas 2 years later --- ah, technology!

 

[michaelbsc]

In 1948, when I was 10 years old, my grandfather gave me his old speed graphic, and a film pack of ansco super press ortho. His comment on seeing the results: hmm, better give you one sheet film holder so that you will slow down and think more about what you are shooting.

I do think this is the reason we see so much crap from digital. The light doesn't know if it's hitting a silver halide crystal or a cmos sensor. (At least I don't think it knows; but some of the wave/particle duality experiments are unnerving.)

But the lack of necessity to "get it right" with the freedom to delete fails to encourage composition. Rather than thinking "let's try to get a picture that looks like this" you're thinking "let's take a picture and see if it comes out."

MB

 

[dehk]

Question.

So do you take better photos with a Pin hole camera? Or even a Pin hole camera with plates?

Technically everything is 'technology'.

 

[wclark5179]

"But the lack of necessity to "get it right" with the freedom to delete fails to encourage composition."

You hit the nail on the head. Gosh, do I agree!

My associate photographer makes very few images at each wedding we work. Clients love it! Take a look at my slide show on my web site. The first two photos are hers. How many did she take of each image? One. Don't need hundreds of each moment if you know what you're doing! These were made using window light.

 

[michaelbsc]

Question.

So do you take better photos with a Pin hole camera? Or even a Pin hole camera with plates?

Technically everything is 'technology'.

I think once we cross the psychological boundary of "this is a lot of trouble" it won't add anything to the fact that we pay attention to the proposed end result. I'm not likely to be more careful with a plate behind a pin-hole than I am with a film holder behind a Schneider 135mm because both of those efforts fall on the side of "this is a lot of trouble to redo" and so they get my attention.

Whereas the "spray and pray" attitude I see my nieces use with their digital marvels fall on the side of "what does it matter; it's free anyway."

 

[benjiboy]

Re: Original post, maybe it appears to work out that way sometimes. Maybe it's because I cut my teeth on film and Sunny-16 (50+ years ago!) -- I think it's mostly working method. There is no requirement that one utilize the 5 frames per minute of a d!git@l thing, nor is it mandatory to use auto exposure or auto focus, just because the capability is there. And you can still disagree with the camera and tweak. Perhaps having the auto-everything mode tends to make us a bit careless in the things that can't be automated -- like composition, angle of lighting, etc., but one can guard against that. I've had work accepted in juried shows from many of my cameras. A year or so back, a shot on a roll that was a test of a newly acquired camera snagged me a nice prize -- even when I'm just testing mechanics or film, I like to pick an interesting location and give a little thought and consideration to what's happening in the viewfinder.

I think that Dave has "hit the nail on the head" the operative word is " thought" the automation makes decisions so quickly that there is no chance to use your experience and think, no that can't be right I'll give it another stop, one of the results of the democratisation of photography with the increased use of automation both for film and digital photography is there's a whole generation of camera users out there who know or care nothing about exposure, depth of field, composition, etc. and if the automation can't come up with the right answer are lost.

 

[michaelbsc]

My associate photographer makes very few images at each wedding we work. Clients love it!

I can't remember his name, but there was a fairly famous newspaper guy (not Weegee) who was nicknamed one-shot or something like that. Apparently he would go to an event, shoot the single prize winning photo, and go develop it.

Much like Henri Cartier-Bresson's street work, the trick is in recognizing what makes the photograph, then making that the subject.

Unfortunately I don't have that yet. I've got a lot of negatives of basically nothing to show in my binders.

 

[wclark5179]

"I've got a lot of negatives of basically nothing to show in my binders"

Can't believe that.

Your view of the world is appreciated by some and perhaps many. Find others who share your voice and build. I sometimes feel the same as you, is it worth it or my photos are crap, but it's how I see and how I search to better see the next time.

Keep at it. Your view is worth a lot because you are you.

I like this:

The camera catches light. The photographer catches life.

 

[michaelbsc]

"I've got a lot of negatives of basically nothing to show in my binders"

Can't believe that.

I do have some keepers. And some are quite good. But there really is a lot of junk in there. Some of it with a capital J.

Probably the best photography book I've ever read was "The Tao of Photography" by Philippe L. Gross and S. I. Shapiro. Not a word about film or lenses or any other nonsense in the book. (1)

I like this:

The camera catches light. The photographer catches life.

It's true! You're free to use it if you like, but you have to promise to pass it on. You can't keep it only to yourself.

Another little catchy thing I used to say to folks during my Kodak Brownie rampage, as people would ask me why I had a flea market camera when I owned some pretty pricey other equipment, is "The photographer isn't in the camera."

It was during one of those explanations that I realized the difference between the camera caching light, but the photographer catching life.


(1) Not that I don't believe understanding your materials is important. Obviously you have to understand what the medium can do in order to know what you can push it to do for you. So technical understanding is extremely important. But it's not enough merely to understand the chemistry of film. I don't know that I'm willing to say you have to understand yourself, but you at least have to be willing to explore yourself. I'm not sure you can ever understand yourself, at least not on this side of enlightenment. (And maybe enlightenment is merely understanding that you don't have to understand. Hell, I don't know.)

 

[markbarendt]

I do have some keepers. And some are quite good. But there really is a lot of junk in there. Some of it with a capital J.

I think we all qualify here.

 

[CGW]

I think that Dave has "hit the nail on the head" the operative word is " thought" the automation makes decisions so quickly that there is no chance to use your experience and think, no that can't be right I'll give it another stop, one of the results of the democratisation of photography with the increased use of automation both for film and digital photography is there's a whole generation of camera users out there who know or care nothing about exposure, depth of field, composition, etc. and if the automation can't come up with the right answer are lost.

Attitude will never trump aptitude--whatever technology is in play. Personally, it's this sort of truism that does little to deepen the discussion:

"one of the results of the democratisation of photography with the increased use of automation both for film and digital photography is there's a whole generation of camera users out there who know or care nothing about exposure, depth of field, composition, etc. and if the automation can't come up with the right answer are lost."

If anything, I find that shooting digital forces many to deconstruct their shots and to puzzle out what could have been fixed before a frustrating session with CS5. I'm not sold on the idea that superior photographic skill/virtue lies on a spectrum running from wet plate and declining to Hasselblad H4D-31. The "technology" doesn't make people stupid. I loaned a Sekonic 308 to an 18 yr old with a Nikon D90 who shoots with a group of friends. He'd never used an incident meter and was startled that it cut down his chimping time drastically. He "got" it and used the Sekonic to explore DOF, exposure, and flash metering. Technology is just a means to an end.

 

[2F/2F]

I wasn't under the impression that it had. I thought it was a greater/lesser technology discussion, and the effect of those on resulting photographs.

I'm a lesser tech kind of guy photographically. My sense was that I had not been allowing technology get in the way of my vision. (Modest though that may be, as I am far from an artist.)

But Allen has raised a very interesting argument which suggests that I may be doing just that without even realizing it. I'm still chewing over his last post.

But I didn't think film versus digital had much to do with it. Did I miss something? (Wouldn't be a first, for sure.)

Ken

I was commenting on the folks who are using the term "digital," talking about how it makes one shoot, and making generally disparaging remarks about the way digital folks shoot. The word should be "heavily-featured," or possibly "modern." We are comparing full featured cameras to cameras that are less so. Film or digital and how each "makes" one shoot are not the issue the OP was talking about.

I prefer to have only the features I need. My Canon F-1's and my Nikon Fs have these (and then some – I rarely use the light meters or self timers or mirror lockup). IMHO, they are the two best 35mm cameras ever made, and nothing need have ever been changed on them in terms of features. I would want my ideal digital camera to be just like these two. However, while I find that features and buttons and electronic gizmos can be mildly annoying to work around, and certainly are largely useless to me, I do not find that they are seriously distracting, or that they make my photos any worse. If I take a crummy photo, 95 percent of the time it is because of my own bad decisions, poor implementation of skill, or luck/timing/preparation (e.g. having a large format camera when a 35mm would have done the trick better). I think this is true no matter what camera I am using. The other 5 percent of the time (if that much), they might be crummy pix because I was too busy fiddling with modern "features" when I should have been looking at the subject. Five percent is hardly enough for me to make an overall statement about how a bunch of features are ruining my shots.

IMHO, the number one feature that technically spoils shots is the in-camera reflected light meter...but even then, the problem is not the feature itself, but the photographer's use of it.

 

[perkeleellinen]

When I was shooting digital, my photos were awful.

Same story here and I always wondered why it should be.

Like you, I initially considered the idea that it was 'technology' - the more complex DSLR vs a fully mechanical SLR. But I used to shoot the digi on manual and I never chimped or pixel peaked.

Then I thought it was because of the 'cheapness' of digital that encouraged me to 'spray and pray' blasting through the frames. Whereas with film, every shot costs money. But that wasn't the case either as in the two years I owned a DSLR I fired the shutter less that 1000 times - I just hated it and it almost drove me to quit photography.

What I settled on was that with film I made prints. With digital I uploaded files to a computer screen. That seemed to be the crucial difference. My hand prints versus either a screen image or a lab print from a file. They just always looked shit. Now this probably has nothing to do with digital at all but more likely my appalling skill level or my low tolerance for sitting in front of photoshop. Either way, the fact is that I normally print a 100 or so photos per year, my two years with digital produced 30 photos I like.

 

[eddym]

The "technology" of the camera has nothing to do with whether the photographer is creative or not.

 

[SilverGlow]

I do think this is the reason we see so much crap from digital. The light doesn't know if it's hitting a silver halide crystal or a cmos sensor. (At least I don't think it knows; but some of the wave/particle duality experiments are unnerving.)

But the lack of necessity to "get it right" with the freedom to delete fails to encourage composition. Rather than thinking "let's try to get a picture that looks like this" you're thinking "let's take a picture and see if it comes out."

MB

You could not be more wrong. Your words are that of a bigot and someone that wrongfully thinks a great picture is just a matter of what medium was used to make it.

You ignore the blindingly obvious fact that for the last 100+, film shooters have shot a lot of horrible ugly terrible pictures. Just like today's digital shooters.

It is sad when we get posts here that are more about love for hardware and medium than actual pictures.

It's about the picture!
It's about the picture!

Never about the medium.

 

[blockend]

For anyone whose interests are in street photography or the human story or 'the decisive moment' it should make sense that a glut of images around that moment might be preferable, giving incremental options from which to choose the definitive shot. Curiously, the opposite seems to be the case. It's generally thought that Garry Winogrand's photography became weaker when he got a motor drive for his Leica and digital splurge may be an extension of the same condition.

I don't believe it's true for every photographer and there are some fine street shots taken on digital cameras but by the same token the film user does not seem to be at a disadvantage capturing a single frame. Who can say why this should be so? Perhaps the same condition that makes for pages of mediocre contact prints in a file followed by three or four fine images on a single strip of negatives and the photographer scratching his head as to why then and how he can spread the magic? The mystery of photography.

 

[Athiril]

Oy.

Photography is among the most technological of the arts. Without technology, we don't have photography. Of any kind.

Don't be thinking that analog film photography isn't technological either. It takes an amazing amount of engineering and resources to produce film. See the book: Making Kodak Film by Robert Shanebrook.

It's not the technology. Technology doesn't make photographs; photographers do. The technology is just a tool. What you do with it is up to you.

This.

Poor photographs are your own fault. Not digital's or advanced analogue cameras with whizbangs and whistles.

 

[michaelbsc]

... hmm, better give you one sheet film holder so that you will slow down and think more about what you are shooting. Well that worked, pictures improved...

The light doesn't know if it's hitting a silver halide crystal or a cmos sensor.

...Your words are that of a bigot and someone that wrongfully thinks a great picture is just a matter of what medium was used to make it.

...

It's about the picture!
It's about the picture!

Never about the medium.

Don't have a cow, man. :confused:

You actually quoted the line that says I agree with you. Except I said it first, so you agree with me.

I don't care if you use charcoal from burnt sticks on a cave wall.

(And yes, growing up with an artist in the house I *HAVE* used charcoal from burnt sticks, but never on a cave wall. And it isn't about the picture. It's about conveying an emotion or message. A lot of technically great pictures fall flat.)

 

[keithwms]

You guys are going to keep this going into the new year? Really??

 

[Sirius Glass]

This.

Poor photographs are your own fault. Not digital's or advanced analogue cameras with whizbangs and whistles.

Sorry Charlie. Digital has no soul in black & white! Only film has that! Go back to HybridPhoto.com before you post here again!

Steve

 

[Sirius Glass]

Don't have a cow, man. :confused:

You actually quoted the line that says I agree with you. Except I said it first, so you agree with me.

I don't care if you use charcoal from burnt sticks on a cave wall.

(And yes, growing up with an artist in the house I *HAVE* used charcoal from burnt sticks, but never on a cave wall. And it isn't about the picture. It's about conveying an emotion or message. A lot of technically great pictures fall flat.)

Mike, can I have what Silver Glow and premo are smokin"?

Man, can't we just all get a bong?

Steve

 

[SilverGlow]

Mike, can I have what Silver Glow and premo are smokin"?

Man, can't we just all get a bong?

Steve

I "smoke" pictures. I don't "smoke" film nor digital.

It's about pictures.

 

[Hovig]

I began to notice the same thing a few years ago, as I was taking better picture with my OM-1n than with my EOS-1n. I started to use my EOS-1n in manual mode, then using spot metering, fixes lenses vs my zoom and if autofocusing, I check the distance and DOF scale, trying to slow down the process as much as possible. I felt the results were better and better. Yet my best hit rate goes to my Lubitel 166B, almost one to one, from the most basic camera! That's one of the several reasons I prefer film acmeras, as everything is designed to be fast with today's digital cameras. Why do I need to struggle to slow down a camera, that is primevally designed to take 10 fms!

 

[Diapositivo]

I understand why the OP takes better pictures with a simpler camera.

On the one hand, he uses only the "normal" focal lenght. According to someone or some study I read somewhere (a very precise source reporting, I know :confused pictures which were taken with a "normal" focal lenght sell in a bigger proportion than those taken with other focal lenghts (wide, or tele). This is probably because normal focal lenghts have a more "natural" appearance.

Now I understand that sales in the stock world and beauty or art etc. are not necessarily the same thing. But people buys images that they "like". The theory here is that the wide availability of wide and tele range, maybe in the same practical zoom, availability which is obviously exploited by the photographer, diminishes the percentage of "normal focal lenght" images, that is of those that, in principle, look more natural to the eye and therefore have more probability to make a scene pleasant.

Old fixed-lens cameras force to use only one, normal focal lenght. That is one reason why the OP, in my opinion, finds a higher numbers of keepers in his production. It's maybe a world phenomenon. Normal lenses yield a higher percentage of keepers.

I think this also had to do with the fact that, in examining a scene, he only analises it under only one "perspective", that of the normal lens. If you have a zoom, or many "primes", you begin analysing a scene under all the several possibilities, the different perspectives, focus plans effects etc. that the scene can offer with the various lenses.

But we are not computers. My feeling is that we cannot grasp the potential of very many possible compositions that all the focal lenght can offer us, maybe we don't have, or don't take, the time it takes to think to all possible options. When we have only one focal lenght, we mentally explore better all the limited possible options. We go round with a "frame" in our head. It's easier to recognise a good photograph, to "match" a scene with that one, single "frame" we have in our mind.

If we go round with multiple focal lenghts, we walk and look around without any "frame" in our mind. We think the frame will be suggested by the scene in front of us, that we recognise the scene and "instantly" apply the right focal to it in our mind. Yes, most of the time. But I am under the impression that when going round with one focal lenght I see "frames" really around me. Don't take me too literally, you know what I mean

Somebody says that to be a better photographer one should go out with one lens. That forces one to concentrate on only one kind of perspective rendering at a time, and is a good exercise in seeing "how the camera sees the scene with that lens". I agree.

Another reason, as somebody says, is that film costs. For me, this makes a difference even if it shouldn't. When I use digital, I do just like as if it was film. I think for sometime before even beginning to try to compose, I compose several times, try several angles, move a bit here and there, etc. I measure exposure "manually" (using histogram with a digital, or an external meter with film), I focus "manually", "previsualising" the shot, where will the highlights fall, where will the shadows block etc.

Well, even considered what above, when I come home I have shot more images with digital, and I think better images with film. It's something "in the back of my mind", I think. Film costs. I just ponder an image a little more without even realising it, but that makes a difference. With digital I have some kind of self-imposed discipline. With film, I have a "natural" discipline in studying pictures, a discipline imposed to me by my wallet (not an obese one).

Fabrizio

 

[FRANOL]

Picture quality has NOTHING to do with shooting film or digital.

The composition has NOTHING to do with shooting film or digital.

What makes a great picture has NOTHING to do with technology.

None whatsoever.

To make a great picture, one must envision and capture a great composition. How one does this, what one uses to capture the light is irrelevent.

Only the closed minded, ignorant, religious, subjective, and xenophobic think the media matters.

If you make a bad picture, it is all your fault and never technology's , nor the media you use.

You can make great art with very low and very high technology.

It seems people are dead set on demonizing technology, digital, or anything they don't like or understand.

IT'S ALL GOOD....It's about the COMPOSITION! Nothing else....

Here: Tri-X, 35mm, Canon 1V SLR, 35mm F1.4 prime lens....

I don't that Faulkner would be better writer if he use electric typewriting machine or PC. PC