[Kevin B123]

This is a question I have been pondering on for quite a while. My answer is yes, IF a photographer doesn’t understand the fundamental principles of photography, or how to adjust their cameras to get the results they are looking for.

My views were formed over the last decade, when I went from being quite comfortable with using my Nikon DSLR camera and understanding how to get pretty good results, to having several strokes and not being able to engage with photography AT all for almost 5 years, to buying and using a medium format film camera with MF lenses to “relearn the fundamentals again” to where I am today, using a Pentax K-50 DSLR with a mix of AF and MF lenses and having fun again.

I have found a level of technology that works for me. It forces me to work on improving my own skills, it gives me more to be proud of when I master something new (or something I used to know, but forgot), and it makes me happy. If I upgrade to a different camera body, it would only be so I could get a full-frame camera, and have my film era MF lenses work as they were designed to.

More advanced cameras and lenses does not automatically make a better photographer. Without a better understanding of photography, the creative process, and how to get the most from our equipment, we can only get so far.

I'm sorry to hear of your stroke, thankfully it seems your long term photographic interest has been an ideal gateway to rehabilitation.
The K-50 is an enabling camera with the drive functions and auto options that it has and is ideal as a mid entry level camera, at least I found it so.

Someone starting out needs a certain level of technology in the camera, because they will read of various techniques and want to try them out and in that sense the camera gets out of their way. It would be frustrating to have disabled camera in that case and would stifle creativity.

Conversely, one thing I wanted in the K-3ii was GPS, and it came with astrotracer that I naturally wanted to try out. Astro is a rabbit hole that can become a bit obsessive, to the detriment of other creative streams of thought.

When I read of a photographer 'just' using manual, I am at once envious and a little annoyed, since the camera is packed with features that are being ignored. That said I have a hard time with Tv mode, I would prefer manual over that.

I'm happy to have a camera without any serious restrictions since I am not set in my ways and will at least try new techniques over time so me the technology is good.

[3by2]

I think digital technology has created a generation of excellent image makers as well as improving the technique of those of us longer in the tooth. Arguably it's also devalued photography and created a cloud of suspicion around some images but there is no doubt that the ability to quickly review images we take, in some comfort, has greatly sped up the learning process, what once would have taken weeks in a darkroom takes hours on a computer.


There is now also a pressure to keep up with the arms race of improving technology, though I feel this is slowing and the differences becoming more marginal. Behind all that the aim remains the same, no matter whether that aim is, fine art, family portraits, holiday memories etc. Sometimes it takes some clarity of thought to bat away what you don't need and pick the right tools for you and your needs.

[clackers]

When people are faced with too many unfamiliar choices, they tend to be indecisive and take too long rethinking things. They fall into what some call decision paralysis.

I think you've not described the technology, you've described a poor artist, Kendra!

Classical guitarist John Williams had nothing but appreciation for the sustain of the electric guitar when introduced to it. Daido Moriyama has had no problem shooting his monochromatic Japanese street photography with either analogue or digital Ricoh GRs. With Rolling Stone, Annie Liebowitz was a spartan film photographer in the Richard Avedon mold but crossing to Vanity Fair became a constructor of elaborate digital composites. After surgery in his seventies, Matisse couldn't stand up for long to paint so turned to cutting out collages of coloured paper in his final years.

I think a true talent, whatever their age and background, recognizes new possibilities and puts their foot down on the accelerator pedal.

I think the dull craftsman continues to turn out the same pictures of roses as they did in 1981.

[BigMackCam]

I think a true talent, whatever their age and background, recognizes new possibilities and puts their foot down on the accelerator pedal.

I think the dull craftsman continues to turn out the same pictures of flowers as they did in 1981.

I agree, Ian... though I believe there's room in this world for both types (and, indeed, all levels and variations in between). Clarity on our present expectations and future goals enables us to work accordingly and with direction, choosing to embrace new technologies - or not - as we see fit...

[35mmfilmfan]

My recently-purchased K3 is far more advanced than any other camera I have owned, or am likely to own - but having come up with the traditional path of fully-manual (not even auto-aperture - 50mm Meritar on Praktica Nova 1) film photography, via auto-focus (Pentax MZ-5n), to K10D, K20D and now K3, I appreciate the need to be fully conversant with the controls, enhancements and limitations encountered with each change of equipment. To me, the essential learning curve was to first read the manual (and, with the K3, the excellent e-book), which told me everything the equipment could do. Then, I looked at possible choices of subject matter (which in my case are quite wide-ranging), and see how the technology could help me achieve what I wanted. Having done this, I tried the approach upon which I had decided - and followed this with the same subject matter, but with everything on the camera set to fully manual, including focus (With my eyesight, the O-ME53 eyepiece was a great help), using my Weston V meter in incident mode for exposure.

Once home, I looked at the images without any processing, to see whether I preferred the manual version, or the 'assisted' version. I was pleasantly surprised to find that, in most instances, there was little difference in the result - so apparently I was using the technology to its best advantage. The artistic quotient was as low as ever, but no manual can really help with that - learning by experience is, to me, the way forward. My conclusion - RTFM ! (Read The Free Manual).

[GUB]

Clarity on our present intentions and future goals enables us to work accordingly, choosing to embrace new technologies - or not - as we see fit...

That is right. And when I described my rather luddite approach earlier it was obvious I was taking the full advantage of the extraordinary tech of the K-1 sensor, the histo it obligingly pops out for me, as well as my computer and programme"s incredible performance.
I was commenting more on the tech (and I think others are) that is purely there for your convenience rather than to create a better image.

[Serkevan]

When people are faced with too many unfamiliar choices, they tend to be indecisive and take too long rethinking things. They fall into what some call decision paralysis. Here is an internet article to explain things:

Decision Paralysis: How To Stop Overthinking Your Choices | Procrastination.com

Additional technology DOES give an artist additional options, and those options can be beneficial, if the artist understand how and where to use them. Too many options without proper understanding will create confusion and indecision. Once the artist becomes familiar with the additional options, and understand when, where, and how to use them, these added options will often lead to more creativity.

As for black and white photography, whether using a 35 mm or medium format film camera, or even a DSLR, new technology will be of limited use (except for a wider range of ISO settings) until you recognize and understand that most of the fundamental elements of good B & W photography are quite different from that of colour photography: shapes, textures, and the right mix of light and shadow are all more important with B & W photography, as is understanding how to use a variety of coloured filters to improve the final look of the photograph.

I hope my explanation helps...

I would argue that without proper understanding the level of technology won't matter too much. You'll bumble around not knowing what to do or how to make the medium (or tool) give you the result you want, regardless of whether you have lots of options or not.

[stevebrot]

Trick question!

I do creative work with both, sometimes with the tech as a fairly essential element. What varies is HOW I create...

• I work differently (a lot differently, to be honest) with my Soviet-made FED-2 rangefinder than with anything else on my shelf.

  
  
  
  
  
  
  

• The Olympus XA is much higher tech, but still a fairly spontaneous tool.

  
  
  
  
  

• With the 4x5 field camera, one does not do snap-shots...ever...

  
  
  
  
  

• The Pentax SV is fairly as simple as SLR photography gets and that influences both subject and style

  
  
  
  
  
  
  

• My workhorse film cameras have been aperture-priority and metered manual film SLRs and I like the output...

  
  
  
  
  
  
  

• I recently got a Minolta Autocord and when I get around to its needed CLA, I sense a sea change related to the tool
• I love the idea of my Exakta Varex IIa, but find it hard to apply
• The K-3 is my most effective tool and when we mesh with subject, even I am amazed.

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

Steve

[Serkevan]

I was commenting more on the tech (and I think others are) that is purely there for your convenience rather than to create a better image.

Personally I feel like the tech that is there for your convenience can indirectly help with creating a better image, by making the camera get out of the way more. At least, in most cases that I can think of.


I agree with Dave that what's most important is knowing your stuff - I might have started in the digital, AF, chimping era, but I tried to apply myself to learning how photography works so I can make the images I want to make... and when they don't turn out okay, I can at least try to see why that happened.

[biz-engineer]

Can too much technology stifle creativity?

The imaging technology is mainly promoted by camera companies to sell us that one more camera model or one more lens. IMO the best way to stay at ground zero for my photography, due to the fact that most published photography material (videos, articles, even training) is about camera gear. I found that resources about painting to improve my photography way more than anything I could read about photography. That said, if there were only a few things that contribute to my photographic results, it would be aspect ratio , format , tripod and strobe. Everything else advertised by camera manufacturer, such as AF tracking, eye AF, mirrorless, frames per second and all., doesn't play a role (for me). I'd be just fine with a three lenses (wide, normal, tele) and a camera that has a large sensor and controlled by 3 dials (ISO, shutter speed and lens aperture), plus a L bracket (tripod) and a flash trigger.

[BigMackCam]

Personally I feel like the tech that is there for your convenience can indirectly help with creating a better image, by making the camera get out of the way more. At least, in most cases that I can think of.


I agree with Dave that what's most important is knowing your stuff - I might have started in the digital, AF, chimping era, but I tried to apply myself to learning how photography works so I can make the images I want to make... and when they don't turn out okay, I can at least try to see why that happened.

I started my photographic journey proper with digital gear that was already quite advanced. My first serious camera was a Nikon D40X, replaced shortly thereafter by my first Pentax - a then-current K-7. In hindsight, much of the functionality, capabilities and automation in those cameras distracted me from learning the basics, and I feel like I wasted quite a bit of time as a result. I wish I'd started out with a fully manual film camera, learning and becoming fully proficient in the fundamental artistic and technical aspects of photography before moving onto equipment that offered more features and automation.

Even now, I feel like I've somewhat neglected the artistic aspects in favour of what I believe is a decent understanding of, and reasonable proficiency in, the technical side of things. That may be at least part of the reason why I've little desire to chase and embrace the latest technologies... It seems in my particular case, I should focus my efforts on artistic development; at least for the foreseeable future...

[AfterPentax Mark II]

This is a question I have been pondering on for quite a while. My answer is yes, IF a photographer doesn’t understand the fundamental principles of photography, or how to adjust their cameras to get the results they are looking for.

My views were formed over the last decade, when I went from being quite comfortable with using my Nikon DSLR camera and understanding how to get pretty good results, to having several strokes and not being able to engage with photography AT all for almost 5 years, to buying and using a medium format film camera with MF lenses to “relearn the fundamentals again” to where I am today, using a Pentax K-50 DSLR with a mix of AF and MF lenses and having fun again.

I have found a level of technology that works for me. It forces me to work on improving my own skills, it gives me more to be proud of when I master something new (or something I used to know, but forgot), and it makes me happy. If I upgrade to a different camera body, it would only be so I could get a full-frame camera, and have my film era MF lenses work as they were designed to.

More advanced cameras and lenses does not automatically make a better photographer. Without a better understanding of photography, the creative process, and how to get the most from our equipment, we can only get so far.

Yes, certainly when you get lost in the technology used by the manufacturer. In a number of cases you see that the manufacturer emphasizes the technology behind the camera (or lens) instead of the technology to get good pictures. The technology of the camera must be subject to the technology of making a picture. By emphasizing the camera's technology and "making things easier" people get the idea that a camera with more "behind the scenes technology" makes them a better photographer, because that is often suggested in the brochures, flyers and advertisments. But apart from knowing what an aperture is and what a shutter is and the influence of the ISO-setting it is of course about having an eye for something that strikes you and the capability to put it to film or SD-card. Recently Ricoh introduced the K-3 Mark III and they emphasized all kinds of new technology or improvements to enhance the joy of taking pictures. I found it all rather pointing at the technology in the camera and not at taking pictures itself. I can understand that, because obviously they were targeting all the Pentax die-hards. But can you get people new to the Pentax brand (or to DSLR) to buy this camera and not get disappointed because there is too much knowledge involved to get the camera working? I wonder.

[clackers]

I agree, Ian... though I believe there's room in this world for both types

Well, the world certainly has both types, Mike!

I would pay to see an Elena Shumilova exhibition, but probably not one by my local real estate photographer.

Unless it was of his own personal, passionate projects, rather than the results of his 'phone it in', risk-free, by-the-numbers hack work his employer expects. Life is too precious to spend an evening out looking at that stuff.

[clackers]

Even now, I feel like I've somewhat neglected the artistic aspects in favour of what I believe is a decent understanding of, and reasonable proficiency in, the technical side of things. That may be at least part of the reason why I've little desire to chase and embrace the latest technologies... It seems in my particular case, I should focus my efforts on artistic development; at least for the foreseeable future...

Mike, I think it's as easy as when you finish up getting the shots you need, to spend the last minutes of the session doing something along those artsier lines, something that was not part of the original objective.

After getting Nicole here some shots she could potentially submit in a model portfolio, we did this. It couldn't be included in those, because they're business-like, and this has a spirit that's not required. But it was more satisfying for us both than the original objective, I think. Social media use, not for an agency!

K-1 and the magical FA77 Limited:

[robgski]

My short answer is no, for many of the reasons already listed. However, if one begins to let the automatic settings outweigh the creative decisions of the human behind the camera, then there is less of a creative process, and likely less satisfaction with the end result.

I spent much of the month of May using my K-1 and a manual focus lenses, and only using manual settings for aperture, shutter, and ISO. Despite limited time for photography, and despite missing shots because of my poor technique, it did produce some images I ma happy with, and so it was not time lost by using manual settings, but time well spent by getting results I was happy with in the fewer images I took.