DanielJDLM

Lol ... Used to drive a Fiat X 1/9... Would never fit in it now

Hbuk66 Loc: Oswego, NY

My approach is very simple; I don't do post processing...

Kobie

I believe in a certain sense it is true. In the days of early photography it was only the enthusiasts that had cameras. Today every Tom, Dick and Harry has a camera. And will cell phone cameras eventually rule photography?
I have returned to the romance of vinyls and just wondered if I should not get myself a Rolleiflex ..... there is something magical about the mechanical era.
But...I have 3 top end Canon DSLR’s with al the singing and dancing lenses - they will stay 😊

dave.m

My view is there are 2 components to a competent photographer and any image he or she will create - the technical and the artistic.

I also started in the 60s and if you didn't understand and could not adapt Aperture, shutter speed, and to a lesser extent ISO (because for most of us that was fixed the moment you put the film in the camera) you were almost certainly doomed to many poorly exposed negs. So we carried an exposure meter or used the sunny 16 guideline. The advent of inbuilt exposure meters, TTL only on the most expensive cameras, was a huge advance as they were tuned to the camera and one less bit of kit to carry. Also it sped up the process no end as no fumbling for and using the meter etc. Also about this time came Fresnel and spit image focussing which knocked the spots off of ground glass screens! Automatic focusing and TTL auto aperture - pure heaven! Why? Because for occasional users all these innovations had a dramatic effect on the length of the process, and in most cases gave better results as they removed major sources of error. For the more experienced / professional user they offered the speed advantage when it mattered.

Like most I now have a camera that has more bells and whistles than a shopping mall Christmas tree. Do I shoot manual? Occasionally when I know that automation will not work too well, otherwise for my type of photography I tend to use Aperture priority, knowing the camera computer will adjust shutter speed to suit the lens focal length I have fitted, and let auto ISO take care of the rest.

Has it improved my photography? Unfortunately not as much as camera manufacturers suggest as I have always found that perfect composition to be frustratingly elusive - but I get very few exposure and focus duds, and with people subjects I don't get 'are you gonna take a picture are keep fiddling with your camera?'

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

The simple answer to your questions is NO. Modern cameras are very sophisticated when embracing the latest technologies but still they are only tools.
The art resides in ourselves not in the tools we use.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

To date, none of my cameras does anything for composition. I have to do that myself.

AzPicLady Loc: Behind the camera!

For us, probably the art has not been lost. For the vast majority, it has been made easy as they use their cell phones to capture images in a nanosecond while we take a long time to compose carefully, select the proper settings and wait for the exact time to click the shutter. And frequently their images are just as good as ours. Since few people print today, what does it matter that we can print a 30x40 while they might get an 8x10? What I notice is that the snapshooters are so pleased with bad photos and truly don't notice that ours might be better. Occasionally after an outing my friends look at time and comment that "we took the same picture, but yours is better," which I do appreciate.

Seriously, I think it's the appreciation of the art that's being lost. I find that the majority of J.Q. Public doesn't care about the correct exposure, or depth of field, or even perfect focus. If it's a subject they like and it matches the decor, it's good. If not, it's of no interest.

Paul Buckhiester Loc: Columbus, GA USA

I was talking with a friend about Ansel Adams’ skills of getting to the right place at the right time, capturing all tonal zones, and then weaving his darkroom magic to produce a print.
Anyone who has ever made prints in the darkroom knows how complex and utterly frustrating it can be to turn out a merely acceptable result.
While it was strangely satisfying to watch the image appear in the developer tray, there was nothing simple about it.
And if the print did not meet his expectations, Adams was back out reshooting his mental image of his desired picture and began the process anew.
I expect few today could rival his prints even if they used his negatives.
Simple? Maybe not!

jcave Loc: Cecilia, Kentucky

Not to be controversial, but ‘the proof of the pudding is in the tasting’. Likewise photographic images are judged by the viewers. Whether or not the photographer had to work, anguish or delight in the process is immaterial. Do whatever feels good/right/best, but strive for the quality capture that offers the finest ‘taste’.

jaymatt Loc: Alexandria, Indiana

No

Eric Bornstein Loc: Toronto Canada

It seems to me that the most significant change in photography with the advent of digital technology is that anyone can obtain a photo that has a quality exposure. The auto and program modes basically ensure this, with notable exceptions such as shooting directly into a light source and film speed. I began the art and science of photography in the late 1960's with my Nikon FTN; light meter but otherwise fully manual camera. The challenge today is very much the same as in the 60's for me. I still have to follow certain guidelines such as quality and direction of light, simplicity, colour versus black and white, etc. It is true that the modern digital cameras certainly have features that we do not use. In fact, I for sure do not appreciate all the toys. Nevertheless, the search for and capture of a compelling image has not changed.

cameraf4 Loc: Delaware

Now that's a can of worms. I was a slide film only shooter for many years. Once the shutter button was pressed, that's all folks. No later changes to your slide were possible (generally). In the digital age, I have often tried to shoot the same way as a challenge to myself. I concede that every image I create could be made "better" by the judicious use of this-or-that wonder post-capture software. But recently I did a camera test and took Jpegs for the test. Got chastised by several folks because I "don't shoot RAW." Honestly, the only exercise that some photographers get is jumping to conclusions.

Photography is (and always was) mostly camera and post. (We slide shooters were many but not generally the norm). There is skill and art in creating the image in-camera and there is skill and art in creating a "better" image after the capture. Just depends on what the photographer wants to do. IMHO

Yankeepapa6 Loc: New York City

OK, or is it Okay??

Poetbard

I believe, in many ways, aside from the art of photography it's like anything else. Microsoft Excel wasn't really an art when I had to think, and work, and set up the algorithms with its specific language; now I know it so well, most times I breeze through what was difficult and don't' give it a second thought. Excel has become a bit of an art.

These new camera's are much the same. Once the language and procedures have been done a hundred times, it becomes second nature and I do them without much thought to the procedure and necessities. I now point, my fingers move things to where I know I want to move them, and although I am mentally and artistically setting up a shot, the "computerized assistants" are set without having to work at them. So (except when learning a new camera system which takes less and less time each time one is added), the art gets all my brain power.

I'd say the answer to the philosophical questions is; repetition of the process, makes the advanced, computerized systems we are now dealing with, merely an invisible means to the art.

crazydaddio Loc: Toronto Ontario Canada

Yep.
Its still a box with a hole. Hole size, how long you open the hole and the chemistry of the capturing tech (iso film or iso silicon "gain") are adjustable.
...and other than some features that help with sports shooting (single point AF and high speed shutter)....most of the features in camera are not necessary and DR from multishot, dodging and burning etc can be resolved in the dark room. (Or Lightroom in my case :-)

As such, most cool camera tech is there to help with efficiency or "guessing" what you really want and/or getting an average exposure. (Exceptions being AF for sports/wildlife)

I only lifted a camera to my eye about 4 yrs ago and after a short Auto period, now shoot exclusively manual....even for weddings and sports.
And other than a (very) few times Aperature priority would have saved a photo due to severe sub second light transition (backing out of a church in paparazzi mode) ...manual has always been better at getting what I want in the moment with viewfinder to eye and fingers on the "hole" manipulators + ISO. (Full disclosure - AutoISO is sometimes useful for subsecond requiremnts)

(...and to Gene51's comment, which was instructive, other than auto-shifters in F1 cars, the race cars are largely manual mode and even the steering and suspension are designed to transmit feel to the driver for optimum perfromance.)