[Roadboat24]

I don't think technology in and of its self is bad.

But I agree with UncleVanya that "a fixation with tech and neglect the art" is prevalent, and I'm guilty of that myself.

I believe how technology is used is key.

There is the discussion of cellphone cameras causing the demise of DSLRs.

I am one, of the opinion, that 'Digital' kind of ruined photography.
Technology is just another tool. Improvements in paints and brushes didn't ruin Art for Rembrandt.
I guess we should all concentrate on the 'Art' and just use tools as tools.

[Michail_P]

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

Well, it’s a nicely put argument. The samples speak for themselves. The anytime-given technology requires different techniques to capture the best possible photo, depending on the creator. That puts things in a subjective perspective but also unveiled the importance of utilizing technology to our own interests and goals.

[pepperberry farm]

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.

just like everything else in life - maybe....

in all things, moderation is the key....

[Kendra59]

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

Perhaps..., but you might also say the photographer was lulled into complacency because they were the owner of that bright shiny new object that "does things" other cameras can't... and didn't take the time to figure out how to get the camera to do it.

The best technology is the technology that can be understood by the photographer, so it can be harnessed and directed to make better photographs. Buying the "best" camera body seems rather pointless if you don't also learn how to get the best results FROM it...

Digital camera design has come a long way in the last decade, and could now be described as being a mature technology. The improvements from one generation of camera body to the next are becoming less significant.

If your current camera body has sufficient technology that it allows you to create meaningful photographs with sufficient sharpness, and has good ISO performance, I would say that is good enough. Further advancements in technology will provide only minor benefits.At that point, I would recommend investing in a few in person photography courses taught by professional photographers who has a proven track record of excellence. Doing that would likely make a much more significant improvement at that point in your photography than a new camera body or lens.

AfterPentax Mark II posted: "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 advertisements. 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."

If you focus too much on technical excellence over creativity, you will never reach your full potential as a photographer. You must be able to express your creativity if you want to create images that leave a lasting impression on those who view them. I would take a technically flawed image that conveys significant meaning over a technically perfect, but bland image every day of the week.

To be truly creative, a photographer must understand how to harness the technology inside their camera/lens package to do new, interesting, and perhaps unexpected things WITH it. If you understand how to use the latest advances in technology to do this, it is all good. Without that understanding, creating images that inspire is a bit like trying to catch lightning in a bottle; you will be counting on the lightning to strike twice in the same place without understanding why it struck at all.

[UncleVanya]

just like everything else in life - maybe....

in all things, moderation is the key....

Exactly. Well put.

Let me use myself as an example.

My first camera was a Diana clone. It had one shutter speed, The f stops expressed with pictures like a bright sun, a cloud etc. the only slightly complex thing was the film loading of the roll film used. Even at age 5 I was able to grasp the basics as they were so simple. Focus? None required. Metering? Not available. The camera was hopeless in many ways but it was easy to start with.

My next camera was a Yashica rangefinder. It offered metering, focusing, flash compatibility, 35mm film, and a reasonably sharp 40mm lens. My results improved technically, but the artistic side was largely unchanged. I began to read books on photography, this more than the camera opened my eyes to more possibilities.

A Nikon Nikkormat FT3 followed the Yashica. Now I could add the ability to change lenses and see through the lens. Filters for black and white were added along with skylight filters and polarizers. More books on photography were consumed. Despite the ability to use many lenses I mostly stuck to a 50mm f2.

A Nikon F2a followed the FT3. Focusing screens were added to the things I could change and use. Metering was better, particularly in low light. More photography books were read. My lens choices didn’t change much. I borrowed lenses from time to time as I did with the FT3. But largely that one lens view from way back in the first days of my photography journey was still ingrained in me. Don’t misunderstand I did use everything from an 8mm Fisheye to a 500mm lens- but not regularly.

The Pentax PZ-1 came next, with a seriously mind blowing amount of technology. Power zooming, auto exposure, TTL flash, a built in winder, autofocus, customizations… it was a Revolution. The creative possibilities it opened were great. The things that stand out are that 1) I began to own and use more lenses more regularly and 2) TTL flash Plus contrast control flash using the pop up plus an external flash made a dramatic improvement in my indoor shots documenting family gatherings etc 3) the A* 85 made subject isolation portraits easier, 4) the f100 Macro opened a world unseen before, 5) zoom lenses gave new compositional freedom.

We won’t speak of the dark days of point and shoot digital cameras I owned…

The k100d super came years later and gave me the low per shot cost of digital (no more film development delay and expense). But the k100d Super wasn’t a major change otherwise. The pz-1 was so advanced the k100D Super added little besides digital imaging and white balance and instant feedback.

A k-50 and an 18-135 provided a revolutionary increase in low light capabilities. The k-3 followed with higher resolution. A bunch of other camera systems and a KP followed. But all of these even including pixel shift have been marginal improvements over time in tech.

Looking at it another way, I started with a camera that gave me very few choices and let the focus be on creative elements. Modern point and shoot cameras or auto mode ILC cameras with a single lens can replicate this. The technical process can be abstracted while developing an eye for composition and the art. But the extra choices can be overwhelming to some. I’m very glad I have the background I do. But I think modern kids with a cellphone take technically better images than I did. Some even learn to take artistic shots using the very simple interface provided. Some will go beyond that and become better photographers. Technology isn’t the enemy, complacency is.

[pepperberry farm]

Exactly. Well put.

Let me use myself as an example.

My first camera was a Diana clone. It had one shutter speed, The f stops expressed with pictures like a bright sun, a cloud etc. the only slightly complex thing was the film loading of the roll film used. Even at age 5 I was able to grasp the basics as they were so simple. Focus? None required. Metering? Not available. The camera was hopeless in many ways but it was easy to start with.

My next camera was a Yashica rangefinder. It offered metering, focusing, flash compatibility, 35mm film, and a reasonably sharp 40mm lens. My results improved technically, but the artistic side was largely unchanged. I began to read books on photography, this more than the camera opened my eyes to more possibilities.

A Nikon Nikkormat FT3 followed the Yashica. Now I could add the ability to change lenses and see through the lens. Filters for black and white were added along with skylight filters and polarizers. More books on photography were consumed. Despite the ability to use many lenses I mostly stuck to a 50mm f2.

A Nikon F2a followed the FT3. Focusing screens were added to the things I could change and use. Metering was better, particularly in low light. More photography books were read. My lens choices didn’t change much. I borrowed lenses from time to time as I did with the FT3. But largely that one lens view from way back in the first days of my photography journey was still ingrained in me. Don’t misunderstand I did use everything from an 8mm Fisheye to a 500mm lens- but not regularly.

The Pentax PZ-1 came next, with a seriously mind blowing amount of technology. Power zooming, auto exposure, TTL flash, a built in winder, autofocus, customizations… it was a Revolution. The creative possibilities it opened were great. The things that stand out are that 1) I began to own and use more lenses more regularly and 2) TTL flash Plus contrast control flash using the pop up plus an external flash made a dramatic improvement in my indoor shots documenting family gatherings etc 3) the A* 85 made subject isolation portraits easier, 4) the f100 Macro opened a world unseen before, 5) zoom lenses gave new compositional freedom.

We won’t speak of the dark days of point and shoot digital cameras I owned…

The k100d super came years later and gave me the low per shot cost of digital (no more film development delay and expense). But the k100d Super wasn’t a major change otherwise. The pz-1 was so advanced the k100D Super added little besides digital imaging and white balance and instant feedback.

A k-50 and an 18-135 provided a revolutionary increase in low light capabilities. The k-3 followed with higher resolution. A bunch of other camera systems and a KP followed. But all of these even including pixel shift have been marginal improvements over time in tech.

Looking at it another way, I started with a camera that gave me very few choices and let the focus be on creative elements. Modern point and shoot cameras or auto mode ILC cameras with a single lens can replicate this. The technical process can be abstracted while developing an eye for composition and the art. But the extra choices can be overwhelming to some. I’m very glad I have the background I do. But I think modern kids with a cellphone take technically better images than I did. Some even learn to take artistic shots using the very simple interface provided. Some will go beyond that and become better photographers. Technology isn’t the enemy, complacency is.

exactly!

this is why I'm not in the market for the latest and greatest....

this is why, just a year ago, I searched for the lowest shutter-count K-5 IIs I could find, even though I had two K-3's on hand...

this is why I turn off most of the 'technology' on my Fuji bodies...

gimme a semi-clean jam jar to shoot through and I'm sure I'll figure out how to have a good time....

[robgski]

Despite the ability to use many lenses I mostly stuck to a 50mm f2.

I agree. In my early days when I all could afford was a second hand K1000 and a 50mm, I took many pictures and really became familiar with how that combo performed in all sorts of conditions. Knowing those parameters and results allowed me to to then use them or step outside them, to get results I intended to achieve. Switching lenses and bodies, along with letting the camera do the calculations made me less attentive, only know am i really becoming familiar with certain pieces of my gear.

gimme a semi-clean jam jar to shoot through and I'm sure I'll figure out how to have a good time....

Some of us have "go-to" props, locations, or themes which we revisit from time time to time. Far from becoming routine, having a familiar subject and thinking of new ways to capture and present that subject spurs creativity.

[Apet-Sure]

where I am today, using a Pentax K-50 DSLR with a mix of AF and MF lenses and having fun again.

That's great to hear! Glad you are 'back in the saddle'.

[stevebrot]

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.

I can see how that might happen.


Steve

[VSTAR]

Technology is great if it serves a purpose. They sell old fashioned toasters with USB ports on them, because one would want to recharge your expensive phone beside a hot toaster, right? Or the Chrysler Hellcat with 800 HP. As I asked someone who knows a lot about them, what does one do with all that technology? Keep it in your garage at all times.
With cameras we have gotten to the point that pixel peeping is the most important review factor. Camera reviews rarely show what type of photos can be taken with a new camera until they do a second review, and then the photos are similar to the ones taken with a $20 camera, nothing artistic, nothing pushing the camera's technology to the limit, and the reviews rarely use the best camera lenses to match the camera. Which is why detailed reviews from users of the camera, such as this forum and pentaxforums,com are important to me.

That's ok, humans are continuously variable. Not everyone has any interest in being creative or artistic. Or even good at documentation. Some people just like playing with complex toys the way other people do crossword puzzles. I see some of these people on the InterNet talking about all the gobs of equipment they own, and I think to myself, they aren't really interested in photography, they really just enjoy the intellectual challenge of figuring out how all that stuff works. They get to be expert on minute differences between practically identical lenses and have to talk about it on YouTube. That's fine with me, because when I'm buying gear, I'm looking for something very specific, usually, and the stuff they talk about is very informative in a highly directed way. I'm glad they're into it.

[ehrwien]

The first thing I had to think about was this quote, and I struggled to find it at first because I couldn't remember the exact words used and if it was in German or English, but eventually I think I found it:

Limitations foster creativity. Tell an artist to paint anything, and he may struggle, but tell him to create something specific, in a set amount of time, for a certain audience, and these constraints might well push him to produce something he might never have come up with on his own. We grow and evolve by testing ourselves. That’s my personal philosophy.

- John C. "Wildbow" McCrae in his story "Worm"

I'm still not 100% sure that this is really what I had in mind, but it seems to be a more prevalent concept (even if the wiki article is very short): Creative limitation - Wikipedia

Two more quotes from there:

We need to first be limited in order to become limitless,” and “If you treat the problems as possibilities, life will start to dance with you in the most amazing ways.”
- Phil Hansen

I think this is also true for technical limitations, and in turn, the more technical possibilities a camera offers, the less we are forced to be creative on our way to achieve results.

But as with anything, this will not be true for everybody.


I don't consider myself an artist, not even the photographer-me which might be my best bet at getting close to creating something I would consider creative art. For the most part I like to think that I'm "just" documenting things, be it wildlife, nature, people,... and I very much find myself guilty of valuing the technical side of things more than the artistic side in my own photography. But I think I'm slowly developing an eye for light and shadow and details. I only got a more serious camera, one where I could influence the exposure parameters myself, around 10 years ago, but I've amassed tens of thousands of shutter clicks in this time. Yes, most of those will not have had much thought put into them, and I doubt I would have gotten where I think I am now photographically with a film camera (but who knows, perhaps that would have made me an artist), but I also very much enjoy just taking the camera with me on a walk, just clicking away at this and that and seeing later if something turned out nicely. A small group of photo enthusiastic friends started to set some photographic assignments for all of us to tackle in a given timeframe, and I found that my approach of just seeing what I get does not work well with those photographic tasks at all. But at least those make me get out of my comfort zone a little and force me to get a little bit closer to trying to create some kind of art

[UncleVanya]

The first thing I had to think about was this quote, and I struggled to find it at first because I couldn't remember the exact words used and if it was in German or English, but eventually I think I found it:

It is true that limitations can help the creative process. I think however it is not a direct conduit to inspiration. The inverse can also be true at least for inspired artists. Photography is already a limited art form for most of us. Most of us are taking images of the world - cutting away bits to make compelling images.

[kiwi_jono]

In my view new technology is great, providing it doesn't start to get in the way of the creative process (i.e. hard to manually control aperture or focus) and in most cases it doesn't.
Personally I quite enjoy experimenting with new features and it gets me out shooting photos more that I otherwise would. Sure most of the features don't get regularly used (or in some cases used at all) but some are little gems for some scenarios (like pixel shift in studio / product shots).

[DWS1]

I think just the opposite. New technology is just a tool that can open up new possibilities to expand creative thinking.