Join Now
Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!
...... or do they just speed up the learning curve?
I'm still exploring my camera, but found today, what has got to be one of the most useful features on it.
On the extra info screen, where you have your histogram, the little thumbnail shows the picture you've just taken. Just discovered today that it also shows which part of the image is overexposed, so you can adjust you exposure accordingly!!!
How cool is that!!!!!
If I had been shooting film, it would have taken a day or so for me to have found out I had over-exposed, and I probably wouldn't have been able to do anything about it.
What do you think?
Emma ;o)
They make it quicker and easier to find out where you've gone wrong but you still need to understand it. Was fully manual on Sunday, what a learning curve! It did make me appreciate some aspects of photography more.
Well, they definitely offer possibilities to quickly correct your mistakes and take a better shot, which is one of the many reasons why I purchased one. Theres also a disadvantage - I have the feeling I only know part of my camera (and Im probably right) - so I've decided to at least weekly read a part of the manual that I dont know that well yet.
Conrad
LOL @ Emma.
How long have you had the camera before you discovered the highlights view? There was a manual with it you know that explained all the nice little features. Too eager to get out there shooting to read the manual I expect.
Really should read my manual some time ;-((
I think you have highlighted the difference between someone who takes photographs and a photographer.
The taking of photographs certainly is is easier these days with any sort of modern camera be it digital or film (from a technical aspect) but no camera can 'see' a picture and it is the ability to do this that transforms a person taking a photograph into a photographer.
In some respects, I think that digital cameras have made the process of photography harder.
Until the advent of digital photography, the truly difficult part of the process was processing the latent image to produce a slide or a print exactly as it should be. In 99% of cases, this was done by a lab with an expert technician or by machine.
Digital snappers now not only have to master the technicalities of the camera but also have had to master the art of producing the final image.
Digital SLR's making it too easy - not a chance!
Barrie ![]()
Emma - when you look at the histogram, it's scary to see how little width you have in terms of stops of light.
Thinking on (and this is not targeted at ePz members but at postings to web galleries generally) what digital photography generally has done is to lower the overall standard of work that is seen in public.
I am not making a judgement here but it is purely an observation.
The ease of use of digital camera, there accessibility and relative cheapness (certainly with regard to running costs) has meant that instead of 'considered' photography, there is a tendency to just shoot anything and everything and post it on the web. It might be pleasing to the photographer but is not generally of a high standard.
I fear that quality photography is being sacrified on the altar of convenience
And if that doesn't stir up a hornets nest - I'm not trying hard enough
Barrie ![]()
Barrie - I'm sure the same discussions took place with the advent of rolls of 35mm. Maybe just not as publically as on the web . . .
I so relate to what Barrie is saying. I started with a Zenit-E and reckon some of my best pics came from that (and mainly B/W too). Slid downhill with automation - let the camera do the work, resulting in poor images.
More recently, got a Fuji S602 which was a great intro to digital (my highest voted was on that) but got gradually frustrated with the automation (mainly focus, but also in-camera interpolation). Now find that I'm increasingly going back to manual operation (most of the time now MF tho' quite often leave it on aperture priority).
But it has been through practical use rather than theory (learned the camera early on but nothing beats practical examples of when to use features - or not, as the case may be)
Automation helps you take pics but doesn't necessarily mean take good pics!
Some interesting points. People are definately more snap happy now, but why not?
If the new age of cameras are helping people to learn and improve, surely thats a good thing?
If it wasn't for digital, I wouldn't be producing the standard of shots that I am at the moment. Apart from the cost of film and processing, I wouldn't know where to start with trying out some of the things I have.
However, and I go back to my first point, is it getting too easy? Do we really need histograms and highlight warnings? Do we need all the white balances when filters always used to do the job?
Emma
I'm with you on this one, Barrie.
There are pelnty of sites where people simply dump the entire contents of a memory card - both the good shots and downright awful ones - onto their websites, simply because they can. It is seemingly too much like hard work to spend a little time editing out the crap - let alone trying to develop a critical eye.
This is the main disadvantage of digital to me. If you shoot film, the whole process of putting stuff on the web is so tedious that you only want to bother if the results are going to be worth it.
And then there's the insane complexity of DSLRs - several button presses and menu-selections just to do something that used to be accomplished by the simple flick of a lever (mirror lock-up for example). And they call this progress?
And don't get me started on the evils of autofocus.... ![]()
Add a Comment
ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.



















