[Kendra59]

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.

[UncleVanya]

Of course technology doesn’t improve art in abstraction. Too many photographers have a fixation with tech and neglect the art. However I don’t think too much tech is going to necessarily cause a failure in the artistic process. Most advanced cameras allow you to disable most features if that is desired. But even when the cameras force tech on you - the art is still possible. Look back at the cheap camera challenge on digitalRev. It’s clear the photographer is far more important than the equipment.
If however paring back the gear offers renewed interest - I wouldn’t look the gift horse in the mouth.

[dms]

It depends.
-- If having to do w/o makes you do things you would not have done otherwise, and because of this made better images, then more bells and whistles may be an impediment.
-- Barring this, having the technology is often neutral/unrelated to the image, and can make it easier, and may make something impossible possible.

Maybe as an artist the first point is more important, and for documentary type work the second one. Your point about mastering some technology and a feeling of accomplishment is important, but I would think this needs to be seen as a given, or else the technology is not ruled by us, but rather it rules us.

[Kozlok]

Do remember, Plato complained about the then-new invention of writing, and thought this new technology would stifle wisdom and creativity.

I think rather than the level of technology being what matters, it is instead that the technology be well-made to serve the purpose of the person using it. I don't need to understand how auto-focus tracking works, I just need it to be predictable. However, I do want to know how the aperture/ISO/Speed triangle works, because it helps me to express my artistic intent.

[GUB]

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.

Definitely.
I use legacy glass primes - no zooms - just take a step forward or back.
Manual Focus - why concentrate on setting your camera to focus on something when you can just focus on it.
No camera metering - the sunny sixteen rule is my friend. ( and meter by studying my results.)
No iso - worry about that later
Manual mode in my K-1
Raw - in other words ignore the in-camera settings
Work in Linux - straight no BS environment
Utilising the organic approach of Gimp - brushes and layer masks.
I may not be the van gogh of the photography world
But I have learnt far more about photography doing this than I would have with the modern generic approach
And one of the defining things is I sense I am more at one with my image subjects than most of my fellow club members.
All this basic stuff fosters the most important sense - the power of observation. It is all about observation.

[clackers]

This is a question I have been pondering on for quite a while. My answer is yes,

Not sure I understand, Kendra.

Doesn't additional technology give additional options for an artist?

Have a look at the Oscar winning black and white Mexican kitchen sink drama 'Roma'. It's full of CGI, for example.

Isn't, say, black and white medium format film, a small subset of creative possibilities?

[jatrax]

Additional technology allows people with little understanding of photography or art to take excellent photographs. Whether that photograph is creative or artistic is a different matter. I don't think the technology itself reduces creativity. It just allows people to make images that are not creative. If all you want is a nice picture of kids then how much creativity do you need.

But if you step beyond pictures of your kids and into the world of art, then the creative process becomes more important. But even there I don't think the technology stifles creativity. It enables the artist to do more. Of course I appreciate a camera that allows me to work without getting in my road. Which is why I've stuck with Pentax.

[pentaxus]

Technology is a tool. If you understand how things work, you can use it to get what you want.

[Kendra59]

Not sure I understand, Kendra.

Doesn't additional technology give additional options for an artist?

Isn't, say, black and white medium format film, a small subset of creative possibilities?

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...

[Michail_P]

Technology is just an invented tool for making our lives better, easier, healthier (at least that is one purpose) ... as photographers we need to ask ourselves: Would we rather have only the basic functionality available to make photos?
My guess is that the evolution of photography would have been certain in any universe.
It’s only natural, because it would start from a single point of improvement and stretch the limits of technological elements available.

[derekkite]

Technology moves the baseline of excellence. Point and click and you have a well exposed shot, and some cropping and post processing can make it composed.

So then what? You will have to see, understand light and seek out the times and subjects. It makes the challenge not technical but vision, story.

My challenge to myself is to look at a scene, flower, critter, and try to capture something that makes me feel the same as when I'm there experiencing it.

It has always been such with photographers. The tools make the technical part simpler. But it is far more challenging to move beyond that.

[StiffLegged]

Interesting thoughts. I wonder if the same sort of observations were made by the early photographers when people started using external viewfinders instead of looking at the upside-down image on the ground glass, focussing by calibrated scale instead of squinting through a loupe under the dark cloth or even using rolls of film instead of single-shot sheets.

And does modern software stifle creativity in post processing too? A friend of years ago had a mechanised approach to his colour printing: standardised printing exposure, colour balance and always followed the primitive camera’s meter when taking the shot. He made so many 8x10 mehs you’d think he photographed sheep. You can still do likewise with presets (today only! 100 killer presets for $5.99 to give you that edge on Insta!!!) but that’s as creative as my friend was.

GUB has it right: it’s all about observation in the end, not what tech made it. Although when the latest tells you “Not like that, place the kitten’s mouth on the other third please.” it’ll be time to head for the hills.

[BigMackCam]

I agree that more advanced technology doesn't make a better photographer, but - in specific use cases, for someone who already knows the fundamentals and takes the time to learn and apply new features and techniques - it can result in better photographs. As such, it depends very much on the individual as to how much technology is "too much". If the money and time invested in acquiring and learning that technology results in tangible, desirable benefits, then it's not too much. Those benefits might be photographic - such as better image quality in one or more situations, the number of "keeper" shots in AF.C focus tracking, perfect eye focus in portraiture, automated tracking for astro shots etc. - but could simply be the excitement and enjoyment of owning and playing with new(er) gear, which for some is a valid - even a significant - aspect of the hobby (though it's an aspect not to be confused with the art of photography).

Finding a level of technology that works for you, whatever your reasons, is a good thing; but that level will be different for each of us. Some folks want minimal functionality and prefer to do everything manually, either for the challenge or because they simply prefer working that way; others want maximum automation, assistance and / or convenience... and then there's a whole range in between. So long as technology is chosen to support one's personal requirements and preferences, and doesn't get in the way of the artistic and technical processes, then it's all good

[Dartmoor Dave]

What I can say for certain is that I'm glad I started out in photography at a time when I had no other choice than to do it manually, because fully manual was all there was. I learned how the aperture and shutter worked by opening the back of my K1000 and watching what happened when I pressed the button. I learned how to get centre weighted through-the-lens metering right because Kodachrome was merciless and it didn't give me any other choice. And I learned how to use an incident meter because I wanted a more reliable method.

Of course, my DSLR gives me creative options that I never would have dreamed of in my Kodachrome days, so in many ways the new technology has liberated my creativity rather than stifled it. But I really do think that it's important to understand what's going on inside the camera on a fundamental level and I imagine that it must be hard to figure that out if a DSLR is all you've ever used. I've got one quite talented photographer friend who thinks that the aperture is something inside the camera body, because he has to turn a dial on the camera body to change it.

The eye and the creative mind is all that matters. The technology is your servant, but you need to be careful because it'll become your master if you give it the chance to.

[kypfer]

Can too much technology stifle creativity?
This is a question I have been pondering on for quite a while.

I don't think so … not having a mastery of "the basics" will stifle creativity, having a mastery of the technology AS WELL can only enhance it!
Being aware of what the camera can do for you simply gives you more tools for the job, but if you don't know how to use those tools they won't help … unless you get lucky
Here speaks someone who, until three or four years ago, had convinced himself that Av and manual focus was all he needed and that the "Green Button" was an unnecessary frivolity!
Should have read that manual a bit sooner!