Are we losing touch with our cameras?

I use mostly Nikon's, so I know how the "things" behave!
All DSLR's are configured the same way (like all focus on the AF button but not the shutter button)
The RF's work the same way has the Old SLR's so no change either (not even the way lens focus ;-) )

Adding to Roger post... He just got married...
67418_1480466533766_1296877282_31163758_2138218_n.jpg
 
After so many years my manual cameras are pretty much automatic in practice ... where as the automatic ones are too often over complicated and confusing, why should I go to the trouble of learning a new control technology just so I can climb on Nikon or Canons upgrade merry-go-round ...
 
There is nothing wrong with automation. p&s's are tools for working too.
The problem lies when people are reliant only on automation that they no longer know how to do things without it. I mean no disrespect to SA's out of this, but I know of a South African who was so used to having maids do all the housework that she didn't even know how to open a can on tuna.

The other day I had a someone using my m6 to take a few photos, they had to ask me twice where the shutter button was and then needed a demonstration on how to wind on the film afterward. In most cases 20 years ago, that probably wouldn't have happened.

But that doesn't mean that someone using a G2 system is any less in touch with their system just because it is doing things for you.
All this in touch business depends solely on the individual and what they want to get out of their camera exactly.
 
Last edited:
I once wondered whether the appearance of the cameras was not dictated by the way it is controlled (as for "serious cameras").
Cameras started getting bigger and bigger when they started being really automated, with some exceptions such as the last small film SLR Minolta.
It is also the case for many other items such as cars : it has to be reassuring as well as aggressive. It doesn't have to be cute or nice looking anymore : a Nikon FM, a Peugeot 405 are small and look rather beautiful, though their later counterpart grew bigger and bigger : look at the size of a 407 (for our American friends, take the old Fiesta and the new Fiesta : the 1980s car weighs 750kg!) or of a Nikon D300! Is safety and the space taken by technologies the only things that we can account for? A 1970s Citroen GS is an extremely small car, the "safety cell" of which can survive (as well as it occupants) a 70kph crash!

In a way, there was a transformation of objects from operated tool (you operate a Leica) to useable objects (you use a DSLR).

We might be what ethnologists call "mutants" : we are half way between a world in which you have to instruct the object what you want to do, and another in which we use a function.

In France we have a problem with computers which is, I think, linkable :

Computers are mainly "anglo-saxon", that means we learn how to use a computer (and they're are designed for that) by wandering into the menus and stuff, and see how it works : the knowledge come from the experience. This button activates that function.

On the other hand, in France, we tend to start from a general principle and try to apply it to our action : perhaps the idea of the "decisive moment" used by Cartier-Bresson is a good exemple. And it prevents people from older generations from using computers properly because the logic is so foreign to them.
My generation, in this respect, is a "mutating" culture as we can master both.

Cameras might have evolved in the same way :
A Leica has got a number of parameters you have to set so that you can get the photo you want. You know you have to set the exposure and focus in such a way to get the picture you want, and you learn how to master it, from the "general ideology" you know.

On the contrary, modern cameras, which obey to the "computer logic" tend to be the application of a function to a process : on a film camera, the shutter opens and the light is painted unto film, though on a digital camera, the signal the sensor gets has to be processed by a computer to give you an image.

So, yes we are losing touch with our cameras, if talking about the old logic, only because we can't actually touch the process...
 
rolleistef said:
I once wondered whether the appearance of the cameras was not dictated by the way it is controlled (as for "serious cameras").
Cameras started getting bigger and bigger when they started being really automated, with some exceptions such as the last small film SLR Minolta.
It is also the case for many other items such as cars : it has to be reassuring as well as aggressive. It doesn't have to be cute or nice looking anymore : a Nikon FM, a Peugeot 405 are small and look rather beautiful, though their later counterpart grew bigger and bigger : look at the size of a 407 (for our American friends, take the old Fiesta and the new Fiesta : the 1980s car weighs 750kg!) or of a Nikon D300! Is safety and the space taken by technologies the only things that we can account for? A 1970s Citroen GS is an extremely small car, the "safety cell" of which can survive (as well as it occupants) a 70kph crash!

In a way, there was a transformation of objects from operated tool (you operate a Leica) to useable objects (you use a DSLR).

We might be what ethnologists call "mutants" : we are half way between a world in which you have to instruct the object what you want to do, and another in which we use a function.

In France we have a problem with computers which is, I think, linkable :

Computers are mainly "anglo-saxon", that means we learn how to use a computer (and they're are designed for that) by wandering into the menus and stuff, and see how it works : the knowledge come from the experience. This button activates that function.

On the other hand, in France, we tend to start from a general principle and try to apply it to our action : perhaps the idea of the "decisive moment" used by Cartier-Bresson is a good exemple. And it prevents people from older generations from using computers properly because the logic is so foreign to them.
My generation, in this respect, is a "mutating" culture as we can master both.

Cameras might have evolved in the same way :
A Leica has got a number of parameters you have to set so that you can get the photo you want. You know you have to set the exposure and focus in such a way to get the picture you want, and you learn how to master it, from the "general ideology" you know.

On the contrary, modern cameras, which obey to the "computer logic" tend to be the application of a function to a process : on a film camera, the shutter opens and the light is painted unto film, though on a digital camera, the signal the sensor gets has to be processed by a computer to give you an image.

So, yes we are losing touch with our cameras, if talking about the old logic, only because we can't actually touch the process...
Click to expand...


Nicely said.
 
Neare said:
There is nothing wrong with automation. p&s's are tools for working too. The problem lies when people are reliant only on automation that they no longer know how to do things without it.
Click to expand...

And therein lies what could be a problem. Too much of a good thing is bad. If people allow technology and automation to supplant the thinking process, then they lose touch with the entire cycle of learning. It is one thing to push a button, or use a function. Its another to understand the process behind it.

As a computer programming professional, one premise of my theoretical training was to try and "think like a computer." Computers don't actually think -- yet. Computer Scientist and the field of robotics are working on that one; computers simply follow a set of instructions. However, in order to have a computer execute that set of instructions properly, a programmer must understand "how the computer will act on those instructions."

We are not all computer or technically savvy. We are not automotive engineers. Most of us turn on a computer and "expect" it to be able to do our bidding. We get into our automobiles, put the key into the ignition, start it, and drive away. Most of us don't care how it works, just as long as it works when we want it to work.

When it comes to cameras and photography, there will be those who "take pictures," and those who will "make photographs." Those individuals who just want to "take pictures," won't care about the process.

Those who "make photographs" will want to understand and involve themselves in the entire process in order to control the outcome and therefore exercise their creativity --ergo thinking processes.
 
I'll bite, no we are not losing touch. All the controls are still on the camera, just in different places. His music analogy isn't really solid because unlike with music, how you change a setting doesn't matter. With an instrument, your mouth makes minute changes to form each note. If someone who never played a sax fingered a note correctly and just blew, it wouldn't work. With a camera you just fiddle dials and buttons. There is no physical interaction between you and the photograph. Photography has long been automated. Ever since a shutter could fire at a selected speed, initiated by the press of a button, we have been using automation. We tell a camera what to do and it does it. The camera is always the barrier between the person and the photo. If a DSLR replaces an aperture ring with a button on the back you aren't "less in touch". You still flip a lever, rotate a dial, or twist a knob to do something. What happens inside the camera doesn't matter at all because it still accomplishes the same thing. There is no technique to changing shutter speed, you can't turn the dial a different way and magically get better results. You just set it to what you want and that is the speed the camera uses.

All this talk of not having aperture rings and controls being moved around have nothing to do with being "in touch". The simple fact is that it is a different tool and you don't know how to use it because you lack experience with its interface. If you shot a DSLR for 20 years you would know it like the back of your hand, just the same as any rangefinder or manual slr. I'll admit that many modern cameras are not instantly intuitive to use, but that has nothing to do with being "in touch".
 
Mikeds80 said:
I'll bite, no we are not losing touch. All the controls are still on the camera, just in different places. His music analogy isn't really solid because unlike with music, how you change a setting doesn't matter. With an instrument, your mouth makes minute changes to form each note. If someone who never played a sax fingered a note correctly and just blew, it wouldn't work. With a camera you just fiddle dials and buttons. There is no physical interaction between you and the photograph. Photography has long been automated. Ever since a shutter could fire at a selected speed, initiated by the press of a button, we have been using automation. We tell a camera what to do and it does it. The camera is always the barrier between the person and the photo. If a DSLR replaces an aperture ring with a button on the back you aren't "less in touch". You still flip a lever, rotate a dial, or twist a knob to do something. What happens inside the camera doesn't matter at all because it still accomplishes the same thing. There is no technique to changing shutter speed, you can't turn the dial a different way and magically get better results. You just set it to what you want and that is the speed the camera uses.

All this talk of not having aperture rings and controls being moved around have nothing to do with being "in touch". The simple fact is that it is a different tool and you don't know how to use it because you lack experience with its interface. If you shot a DSLR for 20 years you would know it like the back of your hand, just the same as any rangefinder or manual slr. I'll admit that many modern cameras are not instantly intuitive to use, but that has nothing to do with being "in touch".
Click to expand...

Well said. +1
 
It's a matter of preference. I used to adore the whole "do it my way" ethos of manual photography - I used to meter, calculate, average, think, re-think and then, just in case, bracket. I had (still do and will always have) a Praktica SuperTL1000, a precision brick with no creature-comforts bar an internal meter (which only works in decent light) and split-image and microprism focusing aids, and I love it to death.

The true revelation, however, came when I picked up a Minolta AL: Without a meter, I guesstimated exposures through the way, counting on Rodinal stand-development to cover the discrepancies. Boy oh boy, I felt liberated. I don't think I ever got a higher percentage of "hits" on a single roll.

It didn't take much thinking to realize that what I'm after is an AE camera. Around that time I also realized that manually focusing SLR lenses slower than f/2.8 (or wider than 50mm) is a bit of a pain, I set my mind one of the AE rangefinders on offer these days.

A few months of searching later turned up a Hexar RF and VC Color-Skopar 35mm f/2.5 II Pan: I'm in heaven. If I need manual control beyond Exposure Compensation, I can have it with a flick of a dial - but when I need to, I can just bring the camera up to my eye, focus, and click: The differences in the final image between 1/60 and 1/4000 are relatively minor, but missing another 2 seconds while matching LEDs or arrows can be crucial.

rolleistef said:
On the contrary, modern cameras, which obey to the "computer logic" tend to be the application of a function to a process : on a film camera, the shutter opens and the light is painted unto film, though on a digital camera, the signal the sensor gets has to be processed by a computer to give you an image.
Click to expand...

I don't know how you do it, but I've never seen an image on my films without having them processed first.
 
An understanding of f-stop as it relates to exposure and depth of field, shutter speed, and manual focusing is crucial to understand, because varying these camera settings will certainly affect the outcome of an image. However, once what these settings do is understood, I don't see any problem in allowing an AE setting to pick for me, as long as I know what I'm getting and can intercede if it's going to do something contrary to the result I'm after.
 
I like the article, its a wonderful artistic idea of photography, I agree with article, my family trip and everyday walk photograhys must be with my old cameras, feeling how I will take the photo, I agree with that, but working I can not waste my time with, I need aperture mode for modeling, product shot etc, speed mode for modeling moving street or people at event and of course a auto focus, tracking is better and a memory of 8Gb because I cant stop to change a roll, I can not say its impossible with film, because the masters of photography made it a long time ago, but now days we have a lot of option with digital...

So the article is right about the "ART" of photography, the article said it.

I love range finder cameras for me.
The work needs any Digital DSLR.

Regards.
 
I think this is a dreadful time for photographers. We're not only losing touch with our cameras, but even photography as an art is slowly losing its prestige... And in fact there is nothing we can do, we photographers are dependent on camera makers and their marketing teams who most often haven't got a clue about photography but know a lot about how to sell.
 
GSNfan said:
I think this is a dreadful time for photographers. We're not only losing touch with our cameras, but even photography as an art is slowly losing its prestige...
Click to expand...

If so, photography-as-an-art's prestige was pretty short lived.

GSNfan said:
And in fact there is nothing we can do, we photographers are dependent on camera makers and their marketing teams who most often haven't got a clue about photography but know a lot about how to sell.
Click to expand...

There are plenty of old cameras around if that's your bag.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom