How far have we really come?

ajophotog said:
So new cameras have pretty much become point and shoot and you get just what you want and hundreds of them, does this make that special photo of less value because it was done without effort?
Click to expand...
While I wouldn't say the cameras are that easy to use, for me the photos aren't less special because it's the moment I'm trying to capture. On the contrary I find it frustrating when I can't get the shot I want especially with many photos there's potentially only one chance to get it, I adore having great sets of photos to look back on.
 
Also the improvement in AI software editing brings another level to photography these days with removal tools and the ability to chage an image so far from what the eye saw to a completely different look.
 
Speed of post processing has changed enormously, not just film to digital but also within digital.
 
I remember going out with 2 rolls of slides and being out all day and coming home with 72 exposures and not knowing what I got until I got them back from kodak and now I can go out for an hour and come back with thousands of exposures mostly all ok and acceptable to a standard I'm happy with. It all seems just so much easier now. where will it be in 5 years time :D
 
ajophotog said:
I go to a fair few locations and when you hear people machine gunning and collecting photos what could be described as video, I often heard of people saying I took 4000 photos and got 95% in focus keepers.... is there any skill in that? Pro capture where you are guaranteed to get the shot is another no skill really needed to get the butterfly in flight for example. I think nowadays emotive photography is by far the hardest to attain and still takes skill and I for one am in awe of people that can create such images. Sorry if I am sounding a bit pedantic but i find it quite interesting how people value todays equipment over the older gear.
Click to expand...
Why does it matter if they're getting the photos they want?

My camera is a tool to get photos and the easier I can get the photos I want, the better for me....there is no benefit for my use in having the camera be more of a challenge.

I think the car analogy mentioned above is an apt one since I can see how some people still enjoy a more mechanical approach to their cars. I can understand why but it's of no interest to me so instead I have an old and very boring but highly reliable Mazda that gets me where I want to go carrying what I want with the minimum of hassle. Same with the camera, it's a tool to get the photos I want.
 
ajophotog said:
I took 4000 photos and got 95% in focus keepers.... is there any skill in that?
Click to expand...
Little skill in simply getting 95% in focus. With the latest cameras, it should be 100%. Whether any of the photos are good is a completely different question.
 
Photography has always been about seeing - either what is there, or what you could make appear to be there. The cameras and lenses are just there to enable that. It's not surprising that many don't take better pictures with better kit, because in general the kit doesn't affect us seeing, and although the automation can help us capture what we see with less difficulty, it can't make us see differently.

There's another aspect too, as we photograph more and gain experience. Familiarity can stop us seeing things that were once apparently amazing through our cameras - like the colours and patterns of autumn leaves or the blurring of wheat stalks waving in the wind. Our minds stop noticing and look for fresh excitement. When I take travel pictures, my best are often the first one or two frames of the scene before me, before it becomes familiar. Sure I can work the scene, but those images are careful rather than spontaneous or exciting.

You need to see to take pictures. If you're bored with the familiar, that will come over, if you even notice it at all.
 
So having the skill to see the photo has never changed, newer gear makes it easier to get the photo these days even before you take the picture and you can now have thousands of in focus action moments as long as you point the camera in the right direction. Where has the challenge gone :LOL:
 
ajophotog said:
I go to a fair few locations and when you hear people machine gunning and collecting photos what could be described as video, I often heard of people saying I took 4000 photos and got 95% in focus keepers.... is there any skill in that? Pro capture where you are guaranteed to get the shot is another no skill really needed to get the butterfly in flight for example. I think nowadays emotive photography is by far the hardest to attain and still takes skill and I for one am in awe of people that can create such images. Sorry if I am sounding a bit pedantic but i find it quite interesting how people value todays equipment over the older gear.
Click to expand...

I have been out before, just stood around, set up, waiting for the light to get nice or hit a certain spot or for the sun to get a bit lower & catch the underside of the clouds..... you know the sort of thing ;) And next to me has been someone shooting the sunset in burst mode - pretty certain they've so far taken about 190 shots vs my 5 :) Things are changing every couple of minutes, not 5 times a second.
 
The latest equipment helps me get more keepers but I will never be a good/great photographer as I do not have vision/eye/artistic talent required. A good photographer could shoot with almost anything, to them it is just a tool.
 
ajophotog said:
So having the skill to see the photo has never changed, newer gear makes it easier to get the photo these days even before you take the picture and you can now have thousands of in focus action moments as long as you point the camera in the right direction. Where has the challenge gone :LOL:
Click to expand...
I think there's still plenty of challenge...I think if you took someone off the street, handed them a top of the range brand new mirrorless camera with a range of lenses then asked them to go out and take photos along with some photos from their phone, they would very likely get poor photos from the camera and better photos from their mobile phone. There's still a lot to understand to get the photos you want and new cameras bring different problems, the Z8 is by far the most complex camera I've used and took time to understand even just the AF system which has many options.
 
ajophotog said:
I go to a fair few locations and when you hear people machine gunning and collecting photos what could be described as video, I often heard of people saying I took 4000 photos and got 95% in focus keepers.... is there any skill in that? Pro capture where you are guaranteed to get the shot is another no skill really needed to get the butterfly in flight for example. I think nowadays emotive photography is by far the hardest to attain and still takes skill and I for one am in awe of people that can create such images. Sorry if I am sounding a bit pedantic but i find it quite interesting how people value todays equipment over the older gear.
Click to expand...
As someone who has never taken a butterfly in flight (yet) but has photographed hoverflies and bumblebees in flight - I would be surprised if it takes no skill.

One thing about today's equipment if I only took photos of models posing or landscapes - I am not sure that I would bother get newer cameras (although maybe I could be wrong)
There used to be a photographer who took great photos models with a Canon 550D and 50m f 1.8
 
I have a photo of a train that was taken by me 25 years ago with a 2.1 megapixel Sony camera. The jpeg file size is about 370K. It prints good up to slightly over 8 X 10", but enlarging further produces diminishing results, and cropping is not worth trying as any loss of the 2.1 mega pixels available prevents the 8 X 10" size quality print. The photo attached is straight from the camera with no POST alterations or adjustments

Do you need more megapixels? Well it sure helps if the photo taken will need to be cropped or enlarged to larger than 8 X 10" size, but otherwise for me it's a waste of camera money. The old 35 mm film camera photos with film taken on 100 ISO Kodachrome film compare today to about a 16 megapixel shots, so any photo with higher megapixels just makes it easier to crop without image quality loss over what can be done with a good old 35 mm camera and quality film. With the excess megapixel capability it does make it a whole lot easier to produce quality photos of any size needed by the customer, but it isn't much of a benefit that I need for most day to day photography. So for me I just see no reason to spend even more money on bigger cameras and higher megapixel capability. The other problem created with larger megapixel capability is the file sizes created. You can fill a solid state or hard drive very quickly with photos that are "too Big" than your actual need, and post processing these oversize photos forces bigger and bigger computers and slower edit times too. Why spend the money, if you don't need this size camera and computer for the kind of work that you do? This is pretty much no longer a race for better capability.

Now, I'll tell you the truth about what I am presently using. I have a Canon 90D camera, two 77D cameras and a Fuji that's about 16 megapixels. They do everything that I could want. I haven't gone mirrorless, yet, since all of my needs, both in studio and out, are handled very well by these cameras that I already have. In the field, with one of my 77D cameras and my 18-400 Tamron lens I can take shots both near and far without the need to change the lens. Today, it's the lens quality, more than the camera that creates the high quality sharp focused shots. I haven't gone mirrorless because my cameras are relatively still new, and I'm kind-of waiting for the 2nd or 3rd generation of mirrorless cameras, figuring that the first generation are likely full of quirks that haven't been fixed yet by the camera manufacturers. My age is beginning to restrict my love of photography (83 now), so I may not ever own a mirrorless camera before the end arrives. It almost did last week and I needed yet another heart surgery. I am doing great again after this. So I am quite happy with what I have and I'm wondering why I should ditch it all and start over with new cameras and lenses at my age. I don't think so, at least not yet.

Charley
 
CharleyL said:
My age is beginning to restrict my love of photography (83 now), so I may not ever own a mirrorless camera before the end arrives. It almost did last week and I needed yet another heart surgery. I am doing great again after this.
Click to expand...

Glad you recovered ok.

If you want to try mirror less, Sony are at least at 4th generation on the A7 and fifth generation on the A7r, so if you want to try, now may be the time.

FWIW, comparing quality, I'd put a 20mpx digital camera at about the same image quality as a medium format camera from the 1980s, lens quality dependent of course.
 
Last edited:
CharleyL said:
I have a photo of a train that was taken by me 25 years ago with a 2.1 megapixel Sony camera. The jpeg file size is about 370K. It prints good up to slightly over 8 X 10", but enlarging further produces diminishing results, and cropping is not worth trying as any loss of the 2.1 mega pixels available prevents the 8 X 10" size quality print. The photo attached is straight from the camera with no POST alterations or adjustments

Do you need more megapixels? Well it sure helps if the photo taken will need to be cropped or enlarged to larger than 8 X 10" size, but otherwise for me it's a waste of camera money. The old 35 mm film camera photos with film taken on 100 ISO Kodachrome film compare today to about a 16 megapixel shots, so any photo with higher megapixels just makes it easier to crop without image quality loss over what can be done with a good old 35 mm camera and quality film. With the excess megapixel capability it does make it a whole lot easier to produce quality photos of any size needed by the customer, but it isn't much of a benefit that I need for most day to day photography. So for me I just see no reason to spend even more money on bigger cameras and higher megapixel capability. The other problem created with larger megapixel capability is the file sizes created. You can fill a solid state or hard drive very quickly with photos that are "too Big" than your actual need, and post processing these oversize photos forces bigger and bigger computers and slower edit times too. Why spend the money, if you don't need this size camera and computer for the kind of work that you do? This is pretty much no longer a race for better capability.

Now, I'll tell you the truth about what I am presently using. I have a Canon 90D camera, two 77D cameras and a Fuji that's about 16 megapixels. They do everything that I could want. I haven't gone mirrorless, yet, since all of my needs, both in studio and out, are handled very well by these cameras that I already have. In the field, with one of my 77D cameras and my 18-400 Tamron lens I can take shots both near and far without the need to change the lens. Today, it's the lens quality, more than the camera that creates the high quality sharp focused shots. I haven't gone mirrorless because my cameras are relatively still new, and I'm kind-of waiting for the 2nd or 3rd generation of mirrorless cameras, figuring that the first generation are likely full of quirks that haven't been fixed yet by the camera manufacturers. My age is beginning to restrict my love of photography (83 now), so I may not ever own a mirrorless camera before the end arrives. It almost did last week and I needed yet another heart surgery. I am doing great again after this. So I am quite happy with what I have and I'm wondering why I should ditch it all and start over with new cameras and lenses at my age. I don't think so, at least not yet.

Charley
Click to expand...
Hey Charley l see completely where you are coming from and marketing has a lot to do with what dreams are sold to us these days. 16mp is the perfect size for me really as l don’t print massive photos. My largest sensor is 20mp and that is way more then l really need for what l do with my photos these days.

Take care of that heart man.
 
ajophotog said:
So new cameras have pretty much become point and shoot and you get just what you want and hundreds of them, does this make that special photo of less value because it was done without effort?
Click to expand...
If you think this image was just a point & shoot you're very much mistaken.

Choose the ISO carefully as micro 4 four thirds is not the most forgiving in low light.
Shoot in full manual to achieve the correct exposure.
Work out how long the shutter could be left open for to avoid star trailing.
Stop down the lens slightly to achieve the required depth of field and improve the sharpness.
Lots of work in Lightroom & photoshop to bring out the details and try to minimise the light pollution.


[url=https://flic.kr/p/2ro6qnM]Milky Way over Afon Lligwy by Terence Rees, on Flickr[/URL]
 
I still look back at some of the images I took over 15 years ago and think they are some of my best work. Especially the landscape images, but I think that is because I had more time to spend on photography. These days I have a better job, which has meant I can buy some good kit, but that I don't get to use it as much. My keeper rates when I shoot action are much higher these days though.
 
Craikeybaby said:
I still look back at some of the images I took over 15 years ago and think they are some of my best work. Especially the landscape images, but I think that is because I had more time to spend on photography. These days I have a better job, which has meant I can buy some good kit, but that I don't get to use it as much. My keeper rates when I shoot action are much higher these days though.
Click to expand...
Me too Lewis.

I should never have sold my Nikon D700 but did because I thought I needed more than 12MP.

I didn't.

But now mirrorless is here I just can't go back to a DSLR as the mirrorless cameras offer so much more in the way of tricks and ease of use.
 
Talking of ISO, that’s where we have come miles. The difference betteeen now and 20 years ago is staggering.
 
Quick snap with the Olympus e-m1 back in 2015 using the auto long exposure/develop function. simples. a lot of the old fashion skills are now taken care of with the new computational features. Not as nice as yours Terry I admit but for a quick snap without any real effort not bad.


Skokholm by Ajophotog, on ipernity
 
Last edited:
ajophotog said:
Quick snap with the Olympus e-m1 back in 2015 using the auto long exposure/develop function. simples. a lot of the old fashion skills are now taken care of with the new computational features. Not as nice as yours Terry I admit but for a quick snap without any real effort not bad.


Skokholm by Ajophotog, on ipernity
Click to expand...

I'd be happy with that Alby.
 
BillN_33 said:
Also the continuing improvements in LR, e.g. easy masking and Denoise, allow older images to be re-processed and hopefully improved
Click to expand...
Exactly what I am doing reprocessing my old raws with DXO photolab
 
Interesting thread some of my favourite shots were taken with my 40D , some wildlife ones it would be difficult to repeat now, birds in Cuba and Macro shots that I took in Snowdonia
As already said the most important thing is being in the right place at the right time the equipment just makes it easier to get the image
 
Last edited:
myotis said:
I thought, this was rather apt for this thread. As usual, I agree with pretty well everything he says.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oaATFo_t9HI
Click to expand...

It very much reminds me of my wife's uncle, he's an award winning editorial photographer and say that his photos can often not be "technically" perfect. It's his imagination, ideas, play on names/words, composition etc that make his photos so good.
 
gman said:
It very much reminds me of my wife's uncle, he's an award winning editorial photographer and say that his photos can often not be "technically" perfect. It's his imagination, ideas, play on names/words, composition etc that make his photos so good.
Click to expand...
Yes, indeed. The really difficult bits of making a good photograph, hasn't really changed over the years.
 
davholla said:
One thing about today's equipment if I only took photos of models posing or landscapes - I am not sure that I would bother get newer cameras (although maybe I could be wrong)
There used to be a photographer who took great photos models with a Canon 550D and 50m f 1.8
Click to expand...
I think that's a fair comment. I still use an old Sony RX1Rmk1 which is about 12 years old because it still does what I need, it's a compact FF camera with great image quality and its lack of features and performance aren't an issue for the type of photos it takes.

However on the other hand I was asked to take photos of a cycling event which is tougher since the cyclists are coming past at speed and there's only one chance to get the photo plus often cyclists would smile or wave to the camera so it's a challenge to get the shot in focus at the right time consistently. This is where the newer camera excelled, it nailed pretty much every shot on every cyclist and meant I could choose the exact pose I wanted as they went by.
 
myotis said:
I thought, this was rather apt for this thread. As usual, I agree with pretty well everything he says.
Click to expand...

I don't.

I think his argument is all over the place with knowledge and kit either mattering or not depending on the point he wants to make but some of what he's saying seems to be along the tired line that the kit doesn't really matter when sometimes it clearly does and indeed it is sometimes a crucial factor along of course with the experience of the person pointing the camera and pressing the buttons. I prefer my own train of thought which is start at the end product, my concept, the final picture, and work back to determine the settings and the kit capable of enabling those settings. If the kit isn't capable then my idea just can not be realised unless it's through some ratio of X amount of luck over Y number of shots taken over Z period of time and whilst I like my photography I don't want to spend many hours taking a large number of shots hoping for one to work when a better technology could get me there faster and easier. It has to be a partnership with the person with the idea taking the picture using the kit and the settings to make it possible.
 
woof woof said:
I don't.

I think his argument is all over the place with knowledge and kit either mattering or not depending on the point he wants to make but some of what he's saying seems to be along the tired line that the kit doesn't really matter when sometimes it clearly does and indeed it is sometimes a crucial factor along of course with the experience of the person pointing the camera and pressing the buttons. I prefer my own train of thought which is start at the end product, my concept, the final picture, and work back to determine the settings and the kit capable of enabling those settings. If the kit isn't capable then my idea just can not be realised unless it's through some ratio of X amount of luck over Y number of shots taken over Z period of time and whilst I like my photography I don't want to spend many hours taking a large number of shots hoping for one to work when a better technology could get me there faster and easier. It has to be a partnership with the person with the idea taking the picture using the kit and the settings to make it possible.
Click to expand...
He isn't saying kit doesn't matter, he is saying, which I agree with, is that the kit only contributes a tiny proportion of what a photographer requires to make good photographs. And he makes the same point that you are making about the importance of using good kit to get work produced faster and easier, as well as ensuring subtle, but sometimes important differences in quality when it matters. For example he mentions using cameras with 16 bit colour as being important for "some" of his work,

Indeed breaking down other parts of his video I also think he is agreeing with the rest of you post, e.g. when he emphasises the thought processes behind the photograph, and knowing how to use your skills and kit to get there, sounds very much like you "starting with the end product:"

But, for me, that isn't the message of the video, the message is that in the past many good photographers were barred from entry to photography because they couldn't afford the kit, or were put off by the apparent barrier of needing to learn complex skills before even attempting to make photographs, Now with the ease of making images they can now start making photographs that match their creativity, and this has raised the standard, and forced the old timers to raise their game.
 
ajophotog said:
Just been looking through some of my old photos taken back some 15 years ago and I think I should have kept my old camera gear and saved myself a fortune in the process.
I think looking back, some of the photos look better then I take now, Have I lost it or do others look back and feel the same?
Click to expand...
I've said it a few times before, in terms of the final image things haven't really changed for over a decade. Sure when pixel peeping modern lenses may be a bit sharper and have less CA's but when viewing at normal sizes there's little difference, and some will say that older lenses actually render nicer as they're not as clinical.

Modern equipment just allows you to get the shot more easily and arguably more consistently than before, and for many this is worth the 'upgrade'. If all you're interested in is the final image then you're better off saving your cash and sticking with older DSLRs.
 
inkiboo said:
Speed of post processing has changed enormously, not just film to digital but also within digital.
Click to expand...
This is very true, as much as we bemoan the subscription based approach Lightroom has gone on in leeps and bounds since moving to subscription and the new features save so much time and effort.
 
myotis said:
... in the past many good photographers were barred from entry to photography because they couldn't afford the kit, or were put off by the apparent barrier of needing to learn complex skills before even attempting to make photographs, Now with the ease of making images they can now start making photographs that match their creativity, and this has raised the standard, and forced the old timers to raise their game.
Click to expand...
(y) (y)(y)
 
The whole point of photography is to make things easier

BBC - History - William Henry Fox Talbot

Read the biography of William Henry Fox Talbot the Victorian pioneer of photography
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk

In 1833, while visiting Lake Como in Italy, his lack of success at sketching the scenery prompted him to dream up a new machine with light-sensitive paper that would make the sketches for him automatically. On his return to England, he began work on this project at his home at Lacock Abbey in Wiltshire.
Click to expand...
 
davholla said:
The whole point of photography is to make things easier

BBC - History - William Henry Fox Talbot

Read the biography of William Henry Fox Talbot the Victorian pioneer of photography
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk
Click to expand...
I think the invention of the original Leica had a similar motivation.

However, I think there is a big difference between making the mechanics of taking photographs easier, and the ongoing challenge of making "good" photographs.
 
Good question/subject. It's funny, as I was looking back at some of the portrait work I did over 10 years ago and they still look great. Since moving to Fuji I seem to have done much less portraiture, I don't know why, although we upped sticks from London to Wiltshire 6 years ago, so I lost many of my old contacts.

With features such as face & eye detection, portraits "should" be easier to get right these days....
 
myotis said:
He isn't saying kit doesn't matter, he is saying, which I agree with, is that the kit only contributes a tiny proportion of what a photographer requires to make good photographs. And he makes the same point that you are making about the importance of using good kit to get work produced faster and easier, as well as ensuring subtle, but sometimes important differences in quality when it matters. For example he mentions using cameras with 16 bit colour as being important for "some" of his work,

Indeed breaking down other parts of his video I also think he is agreeing with the rest of you post, e.g. when he emphasises the thought processes behind the photograph, and knowing how to use your skills and kit to get there, sounds very much like you "starting with the end product:"

But, for me, that isn't the message of the video, the message is that in the past many good photographers were barred from entry to photography because they couldn't afford the kit, or were put off by the apparent barrier of needing to learn complex skills before even attempting to make photographs, Now with the ease of making images they can now start making photographs that match their creativity, and this has raised the standard, and forced the old timers to raise their game.
Click to expand...

I don't think his argument was consistent and I do believe that for some people when taking some shots the kit is nothing short of crucial. OK, many of us don't take pictures which push the envelope of what the kit is capable of but the clear fact is that some people clearly do. In a small way I do too. I take people pictures with eye AF with the subject well away from where the focus points would be with a DSLR let alone a SLR or RF or manual camera. These days almost any camera has eye detect but not that long ago the only way to get focus on the eye with the subject away from the central area would be to focus and crop or focus and recompose and hope the depth got you there.
 
Last edited:
Modern cameras have come a long way. The big question is does it make us better photographers, or are people now relying on the kit to fix what they do wrong?

Too much noise maybe caused by underexposing? AI will fix it.
Eye focus for those who dont know what an eye looks like... ;) (ok for moving subjects it helps).

You see where I'm going. A chimp could take out a modern camera, and get a well exposed sharp photo (well maybe not of bigfoot) but gone are the days of skill and experience.

AI, while it's great fun, I dont see it as photography. Yes I know an elephant always makes your landscape look...... Errr, better?

I know find myself shooting the old fashioned way more or less, yes I do use autofocus, but not eye tracking, but then I'm an old git, and proud of it.

That said if anyone want to donate a Canon R1... my address is....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top