E.L.. Shapiro wrote:
Each of us has our unique ways of participating and enjoying this forum. My particular ... fun is helping folks with certain technical and aesthetic problems or issues that they are encountering in their applied photograhy. When I log in, I scan through the topics and try to find questions in areas where I can provide advice or suggestions. Frequently, I find folks trying to untangle what seems a complex problem with one of the many advanced and automated features in their cameras and/or flash equipment. Oftentimes, the answer is somewhere in the instruction manual that came along with the equipmet in question. Oftentimes again, the OP is admonished for not reading the manual or consulting Google. Sometimes the solution is a simple flip of a switch, a particular menu setting, or a small oversight on the part of the photograher. Many other times it is actually an unnecessarily complex situation of one feature cancelling out another, incompatible accessories, or an instruction manual that seems to be written some kind of linguistic code. The comprehensive manuals that accompanied someof my cameras are "thicker" than the one languishing in the glove box of my car.
The solution to the issue can be a time-consuming, complicated procedure that makes me wonder if the photographer will have any time or energy left to make photographs. I can see going through a lengthy procedure when photographing a static subject under controlled conditions, however, so many folks shoot wildlife, sports, and more animated subjects- how can they get spontaneous images with all that fussing about just to get automation to work?
I am not intimately familiar with all the latest and greatest mirrorless wonder-cameras. My question to the aficionados of these machines is, if desired, can they be switched onto MANUAL mode and enable settings strictly independent of any and all automatic systems?
I have observed that many problems arise in flash usage. It's not enough that the camera has a virtual onboard computer. The photograher mounts yet another "computer" on the hot shoe to control the flash system. At that point, nothing seems to operat properly if at all. Perhaps the entire falsh system was not purchased intact and piecemealing a system after the fact can be problematic. The question is usually something like " my ABC flash is not working with my XYZ triggering system on my QRX Camera- WHY??? More confusion ensues wehn the same gear is marked under different brand names.
Now, I am an old guy with a grey beard but I am not anti-automation- I too love my "gadgets" but more in the kitchen than in my studio. I don't pine fort he passed and old equipment and material that is long gone, however, I am reminded of someof my "old school" methods will still apply. There was a trend back in the late 1950s and 60s in wedding photography to shoot stereo slides on Kodachrome 25. That film had very little latitude. At first, we shot with flashbulbs and later on with electronic flash. We shot fast candid shots, needed to retain detail in white gowns and black tuxedos and texture in white weddg cakes. I shot with multiple flashes and learned how to control ratios. We learned to estimate distances and manually set apertures. We learn to compensate for large and small rooms and use flash fill out-of-doors. it was not "rocket science".
Modern digial equipmet is fantanstic. There are great built-in metering systems, TTL flas operation, and more but how much more complexities do we need and wehn does it get to the point where mastering all the electronics, overtakes the artistry and spontaneity?
What do y'all think?
Each of us has our unique ways of participating an... (
show quote)
Ed--I agree with you in principle. In my experience, photography is an endeavor which is quite straightforward at its core, but which can be pretty complex in "full flower." It is further complicated by a society in which everyone wishes to be an "instant expert," and no one seems to have time or energy to devote to the necessary learning process. And maybe the equipment does contribute to that, but I don’t think it's totally fair to let it serve as an excuse.
My first camera was a borrowed Hawkeye Brownie. No adjustments, except it did have a lever that would engage "Bulb" setting for the shutter. So the only thing to learn was to make a "go or no go" decision before pressing the shutter release.
Next, when I was about 12, I was allowed to use an Argus C4. It had split-image focusing, but no exposure meter. Our "family film" was original Kodachrome. ASA 10. Shutter speed was always 1/50, and the insert that came with the film was my best friend. The only apertures that usually mattered were f/8 and f/5.6. Sometimes I'd go way out on the edge to f/4 or f/11, but that was pretty rare. I still have a lot of good transparencies from that era.
When my dad got a Minolta SR-7, I got his Voightlander Vitomatic II. Wow! It had a built-in match-needle exposure meter, but I lost the rangefinder and had to learn how to estimate distance.
The first camera I bought for myself was a Minolta SRT-201. It made photography a whole lot easier, but didn't really cause a lot of improvement in my photographs. Neither did my final string of film cameras, an Olympus OM-1n, OM-2n, and OM-2s. I did take some college photography courses during this time that did provide additional understanding of what I was supposed to be doing and accomplishing.
By the time I got my first digital camera at work (sometime around 2004) and at home (2006), the transition was pretty seamless. But, after 40 years of "practice," I was free to focus on the new technology. And yes...I was pretty ommersed in the manuals, but they made sense, because I understood what I was trying to accomplish.
What's largely missing today is the patience to learn. Of course, since many of us are older now, many may feel that they don't have time to learn...don't have time to be patient. But in the long run, stopping to take a deep breath and learn a little bit usually shortens the path instead of lengthening it.