charles brown Loc: Tennesse

Just read a thread whereas someone wanted a camera whose functions were controlled by dials and buttons, not menus. Had a budget of $500. As you can guess there really wasn't much of a choice. This, however, got me to thinking. It wasn't that long ago that SLR cameras had three basic controls, ISO, shutter speed, and aperture. In some cases there was a dial that could be used to change exposure + or -. Absolutely amazing photos were made with these cameras. Today we have digital SLRs with dozens of settings to chose from and change. These cameras are also being used to produce amazing photographs. But, IMHO, I contend that while they are equal to they are not any better than what was done before. The real difference and game changer is in PP, not in the product produced by the camera. Then why do we need cameras with so many adjustable functions that for most people are never used let alone understood? Do we really need to have the ability to change dozens upon dozens of camera settings or is this just one more example of manufacturers marketing strategies to keep us buying more and more cameras? A manual only digital SLR camera with four adjustable settings, ISO, shutter speed, aperture and file type (raw or JPEG). Everything else done in PP. What do you think?

CHOLLY Loc: THE FLORIDA PANHANDLE!

Yes.

The more tools you have, the greater your ability to express your creativity, or capture that elusive image the way you envision it.

Not saying that people shouldn't learn as much about the art, craft, and science of photography... but we don't need to start with a pin hole camera and work our way up. ;)

Sunwriter Loc: High Plains

"The more tools you have, the greater your ability to express your creativity..."

Really? Does that also apply to the 14-line rhymed iambic pentameter sonnet?

We are making exponentially more photographs than in the Old Days. Are they better photographs? Of course not. Some of us Old Farts even worked with cameras that didn't have that ISO dial. (In those days it was called ASA.)

It's not the camera.

FredB Loc: A little below the Mason-Dixon line.

No, it's not the camera, but it's foolish and anachronistic to claim that modern cameras aren't "better" than old ones. By that logic, the 35mm SLR was no better than the old wooden field camera that you had to stand behind with a hood over your head.

Why is it that so many people have to decry modern technology for no good reason? Is it because they still need some sort of idiotic physic reinforcement that the hours they spent mucking around with now-antiquated technology back in the 50s and 60s weren't wasted? That's the only reason I can think of. I started photography in the mid 60s and I welcome each and every advancement. It's stupid not to. If you know what you're doing, better tools can only make you better. If you don't, you end up moaning about how complex things are nowadays, and how great it was back in the stone age when all you had to learn was which end of the Brownie to point away from you.

EstherP

Even ASA sounded foreign to me, I grew up with DIN... ;)
EstherP

Sunwriter Loc: High Plains

"No, it's not the camera, but it's foolish and anachronistic to claim that modern cameras aren't "better" than old ones. By that logic, the 35mm SLR was no better than the old wooden field camera that you had to stand behind with a hood over your head. "

Well, I'm certainly not the one being "foolish and anachronistic." I absolutely love the new technologies-- but we are NOT making "better" pictures. And to compare the 35mm SLR to the view camera is to compare apples and oranges. Compared to the view camera the SLR was lousy at landscapes. And the SLR wins hands down for sports and photojournalism. Horses for courses.

JPL

Of course it is better to offer more control on the camera itself. And I am sure that this has helped increase the sales of Dslr in the past years. But does it relate to better photographs? Sometimes. For those who understand what they can do with a modern Dslr and have the eye for a good composition this has lead to more good photographs. But for those who just buy it for showoff and then use auto settings all the time there is limited use for the settings you have available. And those settings "sitting on the shelf" never used will not help making better photographs.

Thunder_o_b Loc: NE Ohio USA

Let me throw this out there. Try to do macro/micro stacks with over 100 photos in them without the instant feed back that digital gives while you are setting up the shoot. The images of digital are apples to apples (35mm film to full frame sensor) vastly superior as the bench tests show to film. As top end photo printers are superior to wet developing. Wet starts to fade after 5 years. Photo printer ink photos stay stable for decades.


As in everything, it is what you do with it. Shooting with digital has in one way decreased the % of good photographers out there. People just do not feel that they need to spend the time to learning the science of photography because there is no cost to just shoot until you get a "good" shot. I can generally tell if a photographer learned on film if I am out and watch them shoot.

I for one do not miss film one bit. It has been 4 years since I went digital. But I will not get rid of all those FD lenses and the AE1 body :)

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

CB, absolutely!!
Again, there was a time not to long ago when superimposing two shots(compositing) was unreal cutting edge.
It's true that many photographers aren't turning out any better images than some were doing 50 years ago.
What is possible with today's tools is incredible. In the fields of commercial and surreal, what is being produced is nothing short of astonishing.
When just photographing the Grandkids, not so much.
Those that say the new technology is no better, just aren't capable of using it or willing to learn.
SS

Sunwriter Loc: High Plains

Wet prints start to fade after five prints? Maybe for poor, sloppy workers.

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

Bingo!

oldmalky Loc: West Midlands,England.

That is what is happening now surely,take the photographs then spend the time on the pp and if you go over the top just say you was having fun.

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

I want to agree with everything you have said, but theres a few things that get in the way.

Your average Joe IS taking better photos now.
I am taking better photos now.
Beginners learn to take better photos quicker now.

I take a lot of my stuff in manual and aperture priority.
So I am just using the exposure triangle like you propose.

Nikon just brought out a new retro camera with dial controls for about $2700.
|I like the thought of not having to go into the menus to change settings. It has the same sensor as the D4.

A lot of the bells and whistle you imply are not in the exposure triangle though.
Focusing, leading and trailing flash, white balance, live view, zoomed in focusing, in camera HDR and light control, rgb histograms, exif data. And the biggy - immediate feedback. Other areas.Lots of stuff. All these things add up.

Like I said, I want to agree with you, but I don't think I can.

Cameras are better now.

CHOLLY Loc: THE FLORIDA PANHANDLE!

You are comparing apples to orange go-carts with your analogy.

And let's be VERY clear here; if Stieglitz, Adams, Daguerre, Halsman, Riefenstahl, Mapplethorpe, and Arbus all had TODAYS technology to work with during their time, their collective works WOULD have been even MORE outstanding in every way because EACH would have had even MORE control and ability to express themselves creatively.

charles brown Loc: Tennesse

Some comments in response to above posts. Did not advocate going back to film. I recommended a different kind of digital camera than being made today. Not in place of but in addition to. This camera would still have many of the same benefits such as instant review of image. All I am questioning is whether or not better pictures are being made because of all the optional settings available in the modern DSLR. Maybe 2% of dslr owners actually take full advantage of the features offered but the other 98% most likely don't have a clue as to what they have or how to use it. Also did not suggest that manufacturers quit making these fantastic computers known as cameras. How many features in the new cameras were once done during PP. Why is this necessary? Finally, I suspect that those who use and understand their camera's features would be able to take great photos no matter what type of dslr.