Fun,Skillful ????

[Doug Herr]

I may differ some here. A perfectly exposed, in focus, razor sharp bad or uninteresting photo is still just a perfectly exposed, in focus, razor sharp uninteresting photo.

I doubt anyone here disagrees with this.

I'll let others make their own judgements but here are a few photos which were enabled by the technology in modern cameras and IMHO are not just perfectly exposed, in focus, razor sharp uninteresting photos.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

What the technology allowed me to do is pay attention to backgrounds, distracting compositional elements and bird orientation, activity & posture. These were all photographed in unconstrained, un-baited conditions, depicting events that occurred without any form of human intervention or manipulation.

Having been photographing wildlife for over 50 years I believe I'm in a good position to claim that in theory any of these photos could have been made without the technology but making them would have required a combination of extraordinary skill and extraordinary luck bordering on supernatural. With technology these were all made within the last 12 months.

 

[EricKlees]

I may differ some here. A perfectly exposed, in focus, razor sharp bad or uninteresting photo is still just a perfectly exposed, in focus, razor sharp uninteresting photo.

One could argue the tech in today’s cameras make it easier to get technically good photos and the tech may help the photographer concentrate on the art letting the camera handle the technical aspects. However, without paying attention to the composition and art part our photography will not progress past fancy snapshots.

Am I there? Not all the time but I do strive to improve with every trip out with my camera.

Just my opinion.
Jeff

What I tell friends people i met or and about that ask me questions and the time in one sessions i do with people, that ask why they aren't getting Great shots with top gear? I tell them this...

No matter what gear that is in your hands, is always a snapshot until your knowledge and creativity make it a photograph. That the gear only matters in this sense... But the gear that gets it of your way of your creativity. Meaning if you shoot fast action, you need a system and body with an AF system that can keep up and track it. If not, no matter your ability, your hit rate will be low.

So the old adage of gear doesn't matter only the photographer doesn't really apply with fast action. But only to the point the gear isn't limiting you, only your own ability

 

[Rixpx]

About 10 years ago, we were on a photo safari in Uganda. Spectacular scenery, a huge variety of wildlife. My wife said to me, “why don’t you put down the camera and enjoy the experience?”
I took her advice and realized that there is a lot to take in that doesn’t fit in a 2 by 3 frame.

I still push the shutter a lot, but I do take a break to just watch.

 

[jeffnles1]

I doubt anyone here disagrees with this.

I'll let others make their own judgements but here are a few photos which were enabled by the technology in modern cameras and IMHO are not just perfectly exposed, in focus, razor sharp uninteresting photos.


View attachment 88361

View attachment 88362

View attachment 88363

What the technology allowed me to do is pay attention to backgrounds, distracting compositional elements and bird orientation, activity & posture. These were all photographed in unconstrained, un-baited conditions, depicting events that occurred without any form of human intervention or manipulation.

Having been photographing wildlife for over 50 years I believe I'm in a good position to claim that in theory any of these photos could have been made without the technology but making them would have required a combination of extraordinary skill and extraordinary luck bordering on supernatural. With technology these were all made within the last 12 months.

These are all interesting photos. Tech helped but your creativity as an artist and your eye for composition and anticipation of the action come through. These are not simple snapshots. You have obviously honed your craft.

 

[jeffnles1]

What I tell friends people i met or and about that ask me questions and the time in one sessions i do with people, that ask why they aren't getting Great shots with top gear? I tell them this...

No matter what gear that is in your hands, is always a snapshot until your knowledge and creativity make it a photograph. That the gear only matters in this sense... But the gear that gets it of your way of your creativity. Meaning if you shoot fast action, you need a system and body with an AF system that can keep up and track it. If not, no matter your ability, your hit rate will be low.

So the old adage of gear doesn't matter only the photographer doesn't really apply with fast action. But only to the point the gear isn't limiting you, only your own ability

I agree fear gear [edit out autocorrect mistake] matters to an extent. I wasn’t suggesting gear doesn’t matter. But I still believe the photographer matters more. Even with action, I can set up a Z9 or any of todays top tier cameras, hand it to a novice and send them to a motorcycle race, ball game or just about any similar event. Their photos will be technically good but there will be a difference between them and a sports photographer using the same tools with the same settings. The person who has honed their craft will almost always get better results. Yes sometimes we get lucky. Mostly, luck is really the intersection of skill, practice, perseverance and right tools.

 

[Cermet]

The image quality is largely driven by the knowledge, skills and experience as applied by the photographer in question. With the added comment - I have some physical limitations due to age and medical constraints. The quality equipment now available allows me choices I would not have had, in my price range, several years ago. A Z9 equipped with the Z800PF gets me shots in a price range I could not have afforded with older gear. The advance VR, other new features, and so on allow me to capture moments I would not have been able to capture with the gear I was using as recently as five years ago.

The increased capabilities of the software also add to the quality outcomes I can produce that were not within my range of possibilities not too many years back. I love my new gear and the advantages it provides that allow me to capture what I can these days.

Skill still drives the system, but the added capabilities and quality of hte tools allow more of us to achieve higher levels of image quality and capture experiences we would have missed even a few years ago.

 

[EricKlees]

I agree fear matters to an extent. I wasn’t suggesting gear doesn’t matter. But I still believe the photographer matters more. Even with action, I can set up a Z9 or any of todays top tier cameras, hand it to a novice and send them to a motorcycle race, ball game or just about any similar event. Their photos will be technically good but there will be a difference between them and a sports photographer using the same tools with the same settings. The person who has honed their craft will almost always get better results. Yes sometimes we get lucky. Mostly, luck is really the intersection of skill, practice, perseverance and right tools.

I think that's what i said

 

[Cermet]

I dont really agree but for a narrower reason. I've been a club judge and national selector and attempting to be as objective as possible, I deduct 1 points (out of a total of 10) for technical faults as our modern cameras do all that work. (3 pts for tech aspects that r NOT camera related (composition, colour choices, differential focus etc) 4 points for story and 2 for the subjective view " do I like the pic."

 

[John Navitsky]

I deduct 1 points (out of a total of 10) for technical faults as our modern cameras do all that work.

i don’t mean to be a jerk, but how much of it “it does” totally depends on how hard the shot is. knowledge, skill and technique (of both the camera, and the subject) totally ramps up as the subject matter gets harder

and tricky shots are often as tricky on mirrorless as dslr

https://flic.kr/p/2pe4ZdC

 

[O]

i don’t mean to be a jerk, but how much of it “it does” totally depends on how hard the shot is. knowledge, skill and technique (of both the camera, and the subject) totally ramps up as the subject matter gets harder

and tricky shots are often as tricky on mirrorless as dslr

https://flic.kr/p/2pe4ZdC

and tricky shots are often as tricky on mirrorless as dslr

Totally agree,

I find new mirror less technology makes things often easier for the less experienced masses to achieve easily some challenging shots.
This is also the growth market for the camera manufacturers that is taking things from photography slowly to videography.

Only an opinion

 

[O]

I doubt anyone here disagrees with this.

I'll let others make their own judgements but here are a few photos which were enabled by the technology in modern cameras and IMHO are not just perfectly exposed, in focus, razor sharp uninteresting photos.


View attachment 88361

View attachment 88362

View attachment 88363

What the technology allowed me to do is pay attention to backgrounds, distracting compositional elements and bird orientation, activity & posture. These were all photographed in unconstrained, un-baited conditions, depicting events that occurred without any form of human intervention or manipulation.

Having been photographing wildlife for over 50 years I believe I'm in a good position to claim that in theory any of these photos could have been made without the technology but making them would have required a combination of extraordinary skill and extraordinary luck bordering on supernatural. With technology these were all made within the last 12 months.

Its all about Composition, creativity, memory making, story telling, connecting with the viewer, evoking emotion, showing a WOW factor and basically being technically ok, is always key.

Photographers with good skill sets know this and achieve this easily be it new mirror less or DSLR tools.

New technology in mirror less simply helps in making good outcomes achievable easier especially for the masses or people with little or limited skill sets, and that's wonderful it will bring more people to the table, hopefully.

Good story telling and composition is common and is photography, regardless of it being a Box Brownie, DSLR or mirror less.

The most common answer i get from club members and many of my professional sports action photographers - associates when asked, How do you like mirror less compered to your DSLRs.

No 1 answer, like the focusing tracking system of mirror less, other than that i can do pretty much everything else as good on a DSLR. Right or wrong its the most common short answer.

When judging photography competitions you look at the offerings, composition, connectivity, evoking for emotion, the story, the WOW, and lastly the technical aspect being fundamentally sound with any minor flaws often over ruled by the power of the story and composition.

The last thing ever of interest to a judge is what gear was used.

That said, in good hands, a photographer with good skill sets not just in making a photograph but complimenting it with capable editing technique can shame exotic high end modern gear derived outcomes.

A good eye with tools used well of any brand or generation delivers very much often the same outcomes.

For me traditionally 90- 95% of what we achieve comes from the person behind the camera as we know.

New technology makes that seem more like 50% as a lot more is done for you, that is good nor bad just different and if the cap fits one can ware it.

Perfect still composition moments today is coming in cases from Video as we transition from photography more to videography, more AI embedded features will slowly compliment this.


Only an opinion from a Z9 Z8 D850 D6 user base, there all just tools that do things slightly differently, its you that makes the photo, the camera just takes it.

 

[Woody Meristem]

Everybody is nostalgic for the good old days, just human nature.

Not me! For years I shot with manual focus lenses on Kodachrome 64 film and threw away (or should have) more photos than I kept. Zoom lenses were so poor that I had only prime lenses and my longest lens was a 300mm; I had a 2x TC that was so bad it was hardly ever used. Film canisters had to be sent away for processing and it was usually two weeks until they came back -- some of my friend's film was lost in the mail. I could go on, but I won't. The good old days -- BAH HUMBUG!

 

[John Navitsky]

yep, i have no nostalgia for film either

 

[Rixpx]

Not me! For years I shot with manual focus lenses on Kodachrome 64 film and threw away (or should have) more photos than I kept. Zoom lenses were so poor that I had only prime lenses and my longest lens was a 300mm; I had a 2x TC that was so bad it was hardly ever used. Film canisters had to be sent away for processing and it was usually two weeks until they came back -- some of my friend's film was lost in the mail. I could go on, but I won't. The good old days -- BAH HUMBUG!

I went through the Kodachrome phase for a few years. We always joked that I had a Grand Canyon slide show that was guaranteed to put my audience to sleep .

Digital is so much more convenient and fun to process on the computer.

 

[stisch]

About 10 years ago, we were on a photo safari in Uganda. Spectacular scenery, a huge variety of wildlife. My wife said to me, “why don’t you put down the camera and enjoy the experience?”
I took her advice and realized that there is a lot to take in that doesn’t fit in a 2 by 3 frame.

I still push the shutter a lot, but I do take a break to just watch.

I run into this while shooting Stage Rally. Have a few seconds to frame, focus, pan, etc... a car potentially going over 100+mph on a gravel road doesn't leave much time to enjoy the spectacle of what's happening. The last event I went to I was "just" a spectator, but I forgot all of the other aspects, the socializing at the Parc expose, seeing what choices the teams made to navigate a series of corner, grilling and campfires stageside at night and so on. I forgot how much fun can be had just enjoying the experience, and not having to worry about capturing the moment.

 

[MartyD]

It’s not about the photograph, it’s about the pursuit of the photograph. Better equipment should challenge a photographer to get better as well. There may be lots of images out there like mine, but they are not mine! Photography is more fun, fulfilling, and challenging for me now than it has ever been.

 

[Lotuselite]

I have had a few suggestions over time about seeing things other than through a viewfinder.
It is a good point.