[BarryE]

Wearing a mask in combination with an OVF has "fogged" my use with my preferred viewfinder. It has also greatly reduced shooting videos less appealing with covered faces and muffled voices.

So not a new direction for me but rather more landscapes and using live view.

Yup, I stopped real estate work when the agent told me all the mask type precautions I'd have to follow. No tea and chat with the clients any more, either - I enjoyed that part. The precautions completely killed my approach. So like you, it's more landscape - for now, at least.

---------- Post added 04-08-21 at 08:35 AM ----------

When photography turns from "Art" to "Technology" ... it destroys creativity. Not creativity means boring... everyone take the same picture over and over again (that's issue about phone photos). People are too focus on the technical details (i.e. sharpness etc.) & forget about the true fun & purpose of taking picture.

So true. I know things are not going well for me when I'm out in the landscape I start what-iffing about how a new lens etc. might help. I've developed techniques that help me get back to what I was trying to do. One is a little voice that says to me to "think like a herbivore", which means constantly scan 360 degrees - I normally get back to noticing small details again and forget technical and possible acquisitions.

---------- Post added 04-08-21 at 08:41 AM ----------

I've been trying to improve my post-processing. I have found a lot of scope for improvement without cutting-edge tech - just the free Google Nik Collection from 2012. It has inspired me to aim for something a bit more artistic rather than just technically sound.

I do groan at the idea of AI-driven software taking the artistry out of photography: "Siri/Alexa, make this photo look like one from Peter Dombrovskis". But I don't think we are there yet.

Hopefully, we're not quite there, but maybe tech will link to smartphone and make suggestions. I could see this happening...

Like you I've been post experimenting. I tried some wacky approaches and for a while I did think about them, but fortunately I recovered

[Des]

I tried some wacky approaches and for a while I did think about them, but fortunately I recovered

You know Barry, it's not silly. Doing things counter-intuitively can help get you out of a rut.

've developed techniques that help me get back to what I was trying to do. One is a little voice that says to me to "think like a herbivore", which means constantly scan 360 degrees - I normally get back to noticing small details again and forget technical and possible acquisitions.

I have a bias towards telephoto, which tends to make me think like a predator - or at least narrows the perspective, metaphorically and literally. It makes you more of an observer than a participant. A wider "herbivore" perspective is a good antidote.

[ffking]

The challenges change, don't they? I used to love taking pictures with my ME-Super back in the 1980s - I love taking pictures with my K-1 now (and everything in between) I just love taking pictures - and if some technical aspects are easier, there are other challenges - if everybody can take a picture that is in focus and well exposed, then the challenge is to take a picture that id interesting, engaging, different, and to me that's a more enjoyable challenge than constantly worrying about getting the right exposure - which I did

[Madaboutpix]

To my mind (and soul), it is still - as it has always been - about preserving what touches me, what excites my photographic eye, moments that the camera lets me preserve like a time capsule. About the process as well, but only as long as it remains enjoyable and rewarding. By which I don't mean absence of challenge and effort; I just don't want to have to fight my gear to get the images I want. Nor do I want the gear to hinder me from experiencing those moments, even if they are mediated by the camera and lens.

That's where Pentax DSLRs with their impeccable ergonomics, gorgeous OVFs, seamless operation, and great results come into play. And their balance between technological advances and usability has meant that with each new model to which I transitioned - granted, so far only from K-7 to K-3 - that photographic experience has been enhanced a little further. And I trust that the new K-3 III, once it gets into my hands, which may be a while, will be no exception. And I'm excited about that ... stoked ... eager.

---

Last edited by Madaboutpix; 04-12-2021 at 03:13 AM. Reason: Grammar.

[Wheatfield]

I read the title of this thread and thought I had logged onto DPReview by mistake.

[Lord Lucan]

I don't understand the issue. Ultimately, on the technical side, taking a photo comes down to satisfying the ISO-aperture-shutterspeed triangle and getting the focus right. It has always been so, but it is just easier nowadays. Or if you want to differ from the "right" technical settings you can put it into manual and deliberately set it out of focus or over-expose or under-expose, all of which Julia Margaret Cameron for example was doing in the 1870s. Moreover, film photographers have always played with colour balance, contrast etc in the darkroom, it is just that you can also do it in the camera now, with the same result. I see no radical change in the resullts.

Artistically, it mainly comes down to to the direction you point the camera, the focal length you use, and when to press the shutter. I don't see how AI can take over that unless the camera is completely independent of its owner, perhaps hovering on a drone above your head and constantly surveying through 360 degrees, taking a shot whenever the scene roughly matches one in its database of 10 million pictures previously approved by the manufacturer, including ones by Cartier-Bresson, Ansel Adams etc. However, I think the photographer, or rather the camera owner, would soon tire of that arrangement. Having said that I remember a theme park where there were signposts around with pointers, each telling you to "Take a Photo from Here", and people were doing so.

Our DSLRs must have hundreds of permutations of different exposure modes, colour balances etc, I only ever use about three, and I use only four lenses. I don't feel at any disadvantage for not using most of the modes and I don't give it much thought when taking a picture. Someone else might use a different three - that is the advantage of the DSLR's versatility. I certainly don't feel that I am being robbed of creativity.

[GUB]

Why do some people get so excited that at each release, cameras get more sophisticated? Does anyone else actually feel a little negative about it?

Unless you enjoy driving cars hard and fast, which in the UK we can't, the increased levels in technologies are there just to make us safer and as a testing ground for fully automated vehicles. Most cars now deliver what is essentially required of them. But, why so the excitement in ever "improving" camera technologies? The natural direction is that soon AI and faultless AF and exposures etc., will render the blob of organic material holding the camera to be all but irrelevant. Camera technologies just make what used to be a difficult task that much easier.

Clearly camera manufacturers have to promote the new wizardry to stay in business - I understand that. So it's inevitable that this continued technological "progress" will soon remove much of the pleasure from the photographic experience for*some (many?).

A related aside: In my youth I used to fish. Recently I had a present for a fly fishing weekend. The waters were so carefully managed and stocked, that even complete beginners were soon catching fish. I got bored and took myself off behind the scenes (into the private areas). There I found pens of trout, all at different stages of development, being feed so they grew rapidly. When they were "ready" they were released into the ponds, where the artificial feeding ceased and much of the water appeared to be deficient in any natural food. Not surprisingly the fish were hungry and took flies that fell on the water like bricks. Very sad. But, most customers seemed to be very satisfied with their weekend's fishing experience. All set-up for guaranteed success.

I don't usually take photos of birds in flight, but I've tried a few times with varying degrees of (personal) success. Many attempts just failed, but I enjoyed the trying. If I were to turn up with the latest and greatest gear, point and shoot and score 10/10 images in most frames would, I feel, diminish the experience.

Malcolm Gladwell's 10,000 hours probably needs to be re-written for photography. Soon it will be more like 100 hours.

Professional clearly benefit from the success hits of their images, but there again they lose out on their revenue as anyone can now take "amazing" photographs, so what's so special about professional photographers anyway some will say?

Just wondering if I'm alone with this mindset ...

I am going to get myself into sooooooooo much trouble here but what you have defined is the stuff that makes the difference between the K3ii and the K3iii
Of course there will be a boost in iso performance and dynamic range but Ricoh isn't really crowing about that.

[Wenwald]

As long as a human still needs to decide where to stand, where to point the camera, and how to compose the shot, the tech improvements will not automatically compose a good photo. The tech improvements just make it easier to get a good in-focus image. Humans with photographic intuition still seem crucial to me.

[jacamar]

For wildlife photography I stiil think about the number of times I have missed good shots of flitting birds because the bird flew before the camera could lock focus, the camera/lens was hunting and I had to focus on a known feature so that I could find the bird again, or my ISO was pushed too hard so that I could freeze movement or get the depth of field I wanted in poor light. I don't think that's a lack of artistry, and if I get improvements in those areas I would be pleased. Even though birds aren't my only interest it's an area I would like to improve on.
At the same time a lot of the images I'm enjoying on Flickr have about as good a resolution as something produced by a pinhole camera, and I am enjoying B&W on by GR-III when the birds aren't active, so I hope my current technical preferences aren't running counter to some future direction.

[Jeremiah Griffin]

Some other have said but the fact is that cameras as a product are pretty much mature.

Any interchangeable lens body you can buy starting at $500 will be able to take perfectly workable photos indistinguishable from real life and with margin for editing too, amd we hit that standard well over ten years ago in all honesty. The only thing you can do with a mature technology is iterate, not upon core features, but conveniences. Sure, image processing, autofocus, noise handling and etc improve every year, but it isn't the generational leap it used to be. Megapixel counts don't double anymore - nor do they need to - autofocus doesn't go from unusable to competent...all cameras are pretty much solid and the choice between brands/systems for new buyers is either functionally a novelty or on cost grounds.

So what else is there to get excited over?

[totsmuyco]

Yes, I believe cameras got sophisticated. People just want more what the camera can do that they found difficult to do manually before. Yes, for those who have gone through the film days, these sophistication takes the fun out of photography. I haven't even fully utilized the functions of my k-5II and k-3II. I'm more concerned with the image I can produce from them.

[hadi]

I do enjoy the eye autofocus that is on mirrorless cameras. Beyond that, i use my phones the same way i use my cameras: for its basic tools to handle the craft. I dont use video, i dont veer off of manual mode on cameras. really, i dont do anything other than photography. so all these fancy features are 'lost' on me.

[ThorSanchez]

Dear Mr. President,
Cameras have gotten too sophisticated and boring nowadays. There are too many features. Please eliminate three. P.S. I am not a crackpot.

- Grandpa Simpson

[Nayu]

Adding on to many other posts in this thread, I appreciate the technology that goes into a modern camera because I don't have many opportunities to shoot the things I want to shoot, and on vacation in a place I may never visit again, I'd want as many photos as possible to be keepers. However, the ability to go fully manual is also good for the times I want to focus on the experience just as much, if not more, than the result. I'm sure that when photography as it is now becomes too "easy", there will be another art form for us to enjoy or maybe there will be new places and types of things to shoot that we aren't able to imagine now.

[tokyoscape]

If I have an option to turn it on/off, I will be happy to have it.
If I want to use it, I will be very welcome whatever technology it is.
If I don't use it, I might try it. Even if the new technology not stick with me, I will just turn it off. Again, I need to be in control. Give me the option to turn it off. I don't mind to have it. Someone else might find it useful and some people might use it in a way I couldn't imagine of.

I think my point of view is similar to @Nayu comments above me. and I couldn't help but think of what painter talked about photography in its early days. Maybe they said photography is not art. And I think they were not wrong saying as such, no one can see the future anyway.