I wonder what my wife's reaction would be if I told her that cooking must be so much easier for her since she has an induction cooktop than it was for our grandmothers cooking over open fires in India
. I'm sure she'd remind me that her cooktop doesn't grow the herbs and vegetables in the yard, nor does it do the prep, seasoning, or plating.
There is no doubt that newer imaging technology increases the likelihood of success in creating many types of images. Perhaps instead of lamenting how unchallenging the pursuit of photography has become, we should focus on ways to utilize the new technology to create images that were previously impossible for us. Otherwise, framing the discussion as some sort of talent vs. luck purity test really doesn't add any value to anyone, since we are unlikely to convince others to adopt our own opinions.
For the image below, I was lying prone in the water with the camera on a tripod. It was challenging to acquire and track the bird from this position. I shot a burst of probably 50-60 images as it flew directly towards me. I was focused on composing to reduce the need to crop and keeping sharp focus on the bird. It was only later while reviewing images on the computer that I realized I had this fish jumping out of the water to escape the skimmer. There was no other frame which had the fish completely out of the water.
View attachment 62541
Now, I accept that it was a lucky shot, because I had no idea this was a possibility. But had I been in single shot mode and captured this image, wouldn’t that also have been luck instead of skill? I did not even see the fish as I was shooting, so there is no question that I would have been physically incapable of seeing, reacting, and successfully photographing this action if I was trying to "time the shot" shooting single frames. This is just one image that I know I probably would not have been able to create without making full use of the advanced features of the camera I had at the time. Thinking about other types of images by other photographers, prior to recent high-frame rate, advanced AF cameras, I had never seen sharp, detailed images of fast, erratic birds in flight, such as swallows, capturing insects in mid-flight. That's a great example of photographers challenging themselves to augment their skill by maximizing the available technology to create previously uncommon images.
One other anecdote. This past winter, I had the good fortune of shooting with a recent WPOTY winning photographer. He’s not a paid professional. He’s a hobbyist. At the end of each day, we showed each other some of our favorite shots of the day. He had a few jaw dropping images that I did not have, despite having stood right next to him for much of the day. The difference was that I sometimes got content with my images of a given scene or situation, while he continued to shoot, often in bursts. He told me, “you never know what’s going to happen and you may capture something that you’ll never see again.” Sure enough, he created the most unique image of a puma preying on a guanaco carcass that I've ever seen. I'm satisfied with my own shots, but he captured a once-in-a-lifetime image that is not likely to be easily reproduced. Is that image somehow devalued because he caught the fleeting moment by shooting in bursts, shot with a 128GB card instead of a 36-exposure roll, or because we had a guide? We still had to hike 8-10 miles a day in cold, windy conditions with occasionally big elevation changes. There was some luck involved, but only after we put in the work to get in position where luck could come into play.
JMO, and frankly, I don't care how another photographer approaches their craft, as they should not care how I do (in the context of this particular discussion).