I am beginner to the art of wildlife photography and appreciate and impressed with photogaphers who have mastered the technique, the creativity and skill and which is involved for capturing amazing photos. I was going through a collection of old, 1960's, National Geographic Magazines with amazing photogarphy of landscapes and wildlife. These photos were taken with camera/equipment that probabaly did not have the features and technology that are available today, including DSLR's we consider outdated. I at times find it hard to understand topics which discuss why a particlar camera is not ideal for specific situations for example, BIF, fast moving animals, low light situations becuse they lack the latest technology( Adequate Buffer, Autofocus, Tracking features, Shutter Speed, low light capabiity ect.) I am curuoius if we are spoiled with all the advancements in cameras/lenses and rely on this technology to compensate for lack of skill/technique and not truly mastering the art. I guess what I am asking does the technology and advancement, not that it does not improve picture quality, allow us to blame the shortcomings of the camera, and not our lack of skill, as a reason why we can't those challenging images. Pro photographers back in the 50's and 60's have captured amazing wildlife iamges( small, large, slow, fast) with equipment that would be considered obsolete today. How mcuh technology do we really need to take amazing photos???? Will technology replace skill and technique required for great photos???
Cameras: How much Technology needed for Amazing Photographs
- Thread starter MLB01
- Start date
If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).
John Navitsky
Well-known member
i think part of it is we tend to have different expectations. a lot of us venture out with the idea we'll have multiple extremely good captures any given day even in challenging situations.
Having lived through several generations of pro-bodies, starting with the F3P, I'd say that the major difference is not the quality of the best "keepers," but how much easier it is to produce those today. In the old day I'd spend a full day setting up, shooting, developing, printing an image a client would pay for. Today I can produce the same quality image in minutes, including post.
tclune
Well-known member
Experienced wildlife photographers generally discuss equipment in terms of the improvements in their keeper rate. It isn't that you can't get good pictures with a manual focus film camera -- it's that you get a lot more successful shots with cameras that have large dynamic range, deep buffers, and fast and accurate autofocus. Since you may wait a long time to have an eagle swoop down and grab a fish out of a pond close enough to your position (and oriented ideally toward you) that you want to increase the likelihood of getting the shot each time.
Woody Meristem
Well-known member
As someone who started photographing wildlife 50 years ago with film cameras that would be considered really crude by today's standards, I'll venture to say that new technologically advanced cameras and lenses will not make a poor photographer into a good photographer -- they will just make it much easier for a good photographer to make good photographs and for a bad photographer to make bad photographs. Not only is it easier, but it's much less expensive in cost per shot since there's no film to buy or processing to pay for. While in the olden days I may have taken 10-20 photos of any given subject, today I made 256 photos of a bald eagle on her nest and my equipment produced sharper photos. Whereas in the olden days I would have been using a 300mm lens, today I was using the equivalent of a 600mm lens on my MFT camera and 1365mm on my bridge superzoom camera and, thanks to IBIS, I could handhold both cameras something I couldn't have done with my SLR film camera and the 300mm lens.
eaj101
Well-known member
I too started doing this decades ago, and I'll go along with the statement that technology has simply made easier things that were possible before. But not the ones you think of, perhaps. Just the simple fact mentioned of being able to shoot nearly unlimited frames made a huge difference. Thirty five years back I came back from an Alaska trip with fifty rolls of exposed film - about 1800 shots. I wasn't miserly about shooting, but I didn't shoot a lot of frames of the same subject. Now I can shoot a lot of different aspects of a scene, try different things, shoot an animal over and over looking for a better image, etc etc. And I come back with (I think) better images. The last trip I came back with somewhere north of 12000.
The tyranny of film imposed other limits, as well. The standard color film at the time was ISO 25. Everyone was amazed when a new one came out that was ISO 64(!). Think of what that meant: much slower shutter speeds, mandatory tripods, need for big flashes, many subjects that were simply unphotographable...
Reliable exposure came in the late 80s and made a moderate difference, I think.
As useful as image stabilization and autofocus are (Minolta introduced AF in 1985. No one really cared.) their impacts are minor by comparison.
So, no, I don't think technology has lobotomized photographers or made photography easy. Good photography comes from vision. We all see dull, pedestrian images every day, taken with cutting edge tools. They're still dull
The tyranny of film imposed other limits, as well. The standard color film at the time was ISO 25. Everyone was amazed when a new one came out that was ISO 64(!). Think of what that meant: much slower shutter speeds, mandatory tripods, need for big flashes, many subjects that were simply unphotographable...
Reliable exposure came in the late 80s and made a moderate difference, I think.
As useful as image stabilization and autofocus are (Minolta introduced AF in 1985. No one really cared.) their impacts are minor by comparison.
So, no, I don't think technology has lobotomized photographers or made photography easy. Good photography comes from vision. We all see dull, pedestrian images every day, taken with cutting edge tools. They're still dull
Personally, I think that technology has made a huge difference and turned poor photographers into good photographers and good photographers into great photographers The best damn photographer to have ever lived can't get as good a bird-in-flight shot with a Brownie that I can get with my D-500. There are some scenes you simply can't capture on ASA 25 film.
There is a simple artistic rule: "A artist is limited by his technique." It doesn't matter what an artist can visualize in his mind if he/she doesn't have the painting technique to capture that image on canvass. The same is true of photography.
Specialty photography is limited by technology. I have taken underwater photographs that were nearly impossible to get with older technology.
So is learning to be a photographer. When you can take a zillion photographs, display and adjust them on a 36"screen the same day it takes a real dullard to not improve. Taking a dozen and send them to a lab with a two week wait, not so much.
Cell phones are creating a multitude of good photographers.
Tom
There is a simple artistic rule: "A artist is limited by his technique." It doesn't matter what an artist can visualize in his mind if he/she doesn't have the painting technique to capture that image on canvass. The same is true of photography.
Specialty photography is limited by technology. I have taken underwater photographs that were nearly impossible to get with older technology.
So is learning to be a photographer. When you can take a zillion photographs, display and adjust them on a 36"screen the same day it takes a real dullard to not improve. Taking a dozen and send them to a lab with a two week wait, not so much.
Cell phones are creating a multitude of good photographers.
Tom
fcotterill
Well-known member
I agree the technology has been vital. Just consider the evolution of flash and the new LED lighting for macro etc. Many of the successes of Oxford Scientific Films has relied on innovations in optics, frames rates and other gadgetry.
Nevertheless, for wildlife nothing changes for many challenging subjects. Natural history knowledge and fieldcraft are the deciding factors. Hunter gatherers continue to show up the more settled groups in this ability. The incentive of an empty belly and social kudos on successfully obtaining protein are likely powerful motivators. I have seen bushmeat hunters tracking aerial spoor I couldn't detect on close examination. One hunter I worked within the Congo basin was a renowned hunter. I watched him track up a tree pangolin that moved moved through long dry grass and savanna leaflitter etc, between tall trees: almost all the aerial spoor was indecipherable to my eye. And I know sign fairly well (also being privileged to start very young) and i've tracked up a few mammals successfully.
The best at fieldcraft and finding elusive subjects seem to possess almost innate abilities, which may be inherited. I know of central African trackers in the safari industry, whose sons continue the family tradition of a respected wage earner. These gentlemen are revered in their local communities. In all communities affluent or still living in raw nature, these skills are learnt at a very young age.
Back to equipment, the new cameras with higher fps and silent shooting, "low light" sensors etc are game changers compared to even 2 decades earlier. So are the lighter faster lenses with vastly improved AF and outstanding acuity are game changers. Together these raise the possibilities hugely of capturing the proverbial moment.
However, it takes an artistic eye to capture an outstanding image of nature - nothing changes here either.
Nevertheless, for wildlife nothing changes for many challenging subjects. Natural history knowledge and fieldcraft are the deciding factors. Hunter gatherers continue to show up the more settled groups in this ability. The incentive of an empty belly and social kudos on successfully obtaining protein are likely powerful motivators. I have seen bushmeat hunters tracking aerial spoor I couldn't detect on close examination. One hunter I worked within the Congo basin was a renowned hunter. I watched him track up a tree pangolin that moved moved through long dry grass and savanna leaflitter etc, between tall trees: almost all the aerial spoor was indecipherable to my eye. And I know sign fairly well (also being privileged to start very young) and i've tracked up a few mammals successfully.
The best at fieldcraft and finding elusive subjects seem to possess almost innate abilities, which may be inherited. I know of central African trackers in the safari industry, whose sons continue the family tradition of a respected wage earner. These gentlemen are revered in their local communities. In all communities affluent or still living in raw nature, these skills are learnt at a very young age.
Back to equipment, the new cameras with higher fps and silent shooting, "low light" sensors etc are game changers compared to even 2 decades earlier. So are the lighter faster lenses with vastly improved AF and outstanding acuity are game changers. Together these raise the possibilities hugely of capturing the proverbial moment.
However, it takes an artistic eye to capture an outstanding image of nature - nothing changes here either.
John Navitsky
Well-known member
also, the new tech lets me get my 10,000 reps a lot faster
As Steve Perry says, "80% of any picture is 2" behind the camera". Technology has only helped us with a higher keeper rate.
ruley74
Well-known member
Hey hey... I'm not good!
StefanSC
Well-known member
I strongly suggest to get the book "50 Years of Wildlife Photographer of the Year: How Wildlife Photography Became Art". It documents the evolution of wildlife photography from it's begining to modern day and it also explains how many of the shots were taken.
After you read that book and seen the shots in it, go through the Nature Photography presentation on this forum and compare the shots you see there with those in the WPOTY book. And for extra kicks, go to facebook groups or flickr groups and see the shots there too.
I for one, after doing this experiment, came to the conclusion that, while technology will not replace the skill, work and dedication required to make a great photo, it has mostly replaced the skill and technique required to make a decent photo.
And this is harming wildlife photography in the long term, as it has gotten it stuck in a place of perfectly exposed, perfectly focused, very sharp shots of "bird on a stick" that are as dull as can be.
pwaring
Well-known member
The photos taken in National Geographic back then are by professionals. Many of us on forums would not be doing this hobby if we had to contend with incredibly heavy lenses, manual focus and film. A lot of us don't have the time to dedicate the same time that professionals do to their technique, animal knowledge and fieldcraft because we have regular jobs and photography is the fun thing we do at the weekend and on photography holidays.
For many modern amateur photographers it is precisely the advances in technology that allow us to really embrace the hobby. It also allows professional photographers to capture frames that they could not have captured before. Some amateurs may blame the camera rather than their own skills but I suspect that was also the case back in the 1950s.
A camera isn't going to win anyone an award for photography. It doesn't control the lighting, the background, the colours in the scene or the moment. All of those things are what make a great photograph and the camera simply captures it. I think the idea that better cameras can ruin photography is just as ridiculous as the idea that better brushes could ruin the art of painting.
For many modern amateur photographers it is precisely the advances in technology that allow us to really embrace the hobby. It also allows professional photographers to capture frames that they could not have captured before. Some amateurs may blame the camera rather than their own skills but I suspect that was also the case back in the 1950s.
A camera isn't going to win anyone an award for photography. It doesn't control the lighting, the background, the colours in the scene or the moment. All of those things are what make a great photograph and the camera simply captures it. I think the idea that better cameras can ruin photography is just as ridiculous as the idea that better brushes could ruin the art of painting.
pwaring
Well-known member
I totally agree that advances in technology help make a decent photo but do far less for those making great photos. I don't agree that it's harming wildlife photography though. Are you judging this based on what you see on forums? I think if I were to go and get all of the albums from Wildlife Photographer of the Year I do not think I would see a decline in the quality in recent times. We're exposed to a lot more images now if we're in facebook groups, instagram, forums etc and the vast majority of those are amateur.. but they make me really appreciate great photography when I see it. I think we just need to make more effort to go and look at the great work done by professionals because you'll struggle to find the same artistry in amateur work.
G-FOTO.de
Active member
I would say YES and NO.
Lets say for casual wildlife which can be catched easily nearly everywhere, YES.
But if you jump into more shy species which need to be detected and where you need more knowledge of their behaviour etc., NO.
This is quite black and white, but there is a lot of grey inbetween.
Even with an A1 or Z9 attached to a 600 f4 you will not get top wildlife shots easily. You need to know about which shutter speed for which situation/specie, aperture, iso and you name it.
StefanSC
Well-known member
@pwaring:
Yes, at the top level, things are great.
And at the bottom level, it's easier than ever to get a decent shot.
Where I am seeing the squeeze is at the medium level, where advanced amateurs that are trying to do something different are getting drowned out by a sea of images that look alike.
Yes, at the top level, things are great.
And at the bottom level, it's easier than ever to get a decent shot.
Where I am seeing the squeeze is at the medium level, where advanced amateurs that are trying to do something different are getting drowned out by a sea of images that look alike.
Last edited:
I’m very tech…..maths is my thing. I can navigate a sub, ship, aircraft anywhere, anytime. Take a photo. Couldn’t be easier. But alas, I’m not in least creative, and in my opinion my photos, from film back in the early 1080’s to now 15 years of digital, just suck. why do I say this? Well it underlines the fact that photography is much more about creativity than about tech. Bummer. I need a new hobby.
I have enjoyed reading some of Robert Henri's books. He was a well known painter and art teacher. Something sticks with me from his book, The Art Spirit:
"To have ideas one must have imagination. To express ideas one must have science."
So to me that says tech and art always have and always will go together, but photography is a particularly tech dependent medium.
"To have ideas one must have imagination. To express ideas one must have science."
So to me that says tech and art always have and always will go together, but photography is a particularly tech dependent medium.
My first SLR's fastest shutter speed was 1/1000. That seemed plenty fast in the '70s. Now I shoot hummingbirds and bees as fast as 1/8000. Tech moves forwards and it's a good thing. We all live with financial and practical limitations when considering gear, and that is ultimately where we tend to draw the line when deciding about purchases and what works best for us.
The biggest difference for me is ISO. It is truly incredible the ISO's we can shoot at today and get very good images, especially after Topaz DeNoise!
Fear no ISO!
Fear no ISO!
Lakeman
Active member
The biggest difference for me is the processing. In the early 80's it was a day developing negatives and a day developing photos, the expense of film, chemicals, and equipment was crazy. I found myself taking classes at technical schools just to have access to development equipment. Now I pay $10 a month for Adobe Photography Plan which gives me access to latest Photoshop, Lightroom, and other software where I can do wonders with photos. Sure the software has a learning curve but nothing like it was back then.
My biggest issue with technology is it has enabled me to have multiple hobbies! Which means I might have to come out of retirement LOL!
My biggest issue with technology is it has enabled me to have multiple hobbies! Which means I might have to come out of retirement LOL!
To understand why technology has little bearing on creating exquisite art, all you need to do is look at Classical Greek sculpture, or 300 year old Anatolian flat weave rugs, or prehistoric Mayan pottery, etc, etc. It's the skill and inspiration of the artist, not the tools s/he uses.
Yes but my wife makes better pottery than the Mayans because the tools are better. My grandson can print better sculpture than the Greeks (although not as big).
Tom
Imagine trying to tracking a flying bird w/o AF Yes it can be done, but keeper rate is very very low
Yes it can be done, but keeper rate is very very low- Status