mike@asgb.UUCP (Mike Rosenlof) (02/25/85)
[]
> Is the new technology in cameras (like the new Canon) really worth it?
This may open me up to the flame throwers, but....
As to if all the electronic f&g (flash and glitter), that's one of my
pet peeves so here goes...
I suppose it really depends on what kind of photography you want to
do. In my opinion, REAL photography requires lots of patience,
thought, and attention to detail. REAL Photographers (with a capital
'P') must consider all of the variables in exposure, composition,
lighting, and (preferably) processing and their effect towards the end
result of an expressive Photograph.
Lately, the trend in 35mm photography has been toward a different
capital 'P'. It stands for 'Programmed', 'Point and shoot', and
'Push the button, we do the rest'. Many of these machines are really
very high quality Instamatics. They do a wonderful job of recording
events, but all of their programs and motors and auto-everything do
little if anything to advance the Art of Photography.
On the other hand, I'll very quickly acknowledge that the
auto-everything machines are fine tools for the Art of
Photojournalism. - Please note the distinction between what I refer to
as two different Arts, in the same medium.
Mike Rosenlof ihnp4!sabre!\
hplabs!sdcrdcf!-bmcg!asgb!mike
{ ihnp4, ucbvax, allegra }!sdcsvax!/
Burroughs Advanced Systems Group Boulder, Colorado
P.S. I'll admit being something of a fanatic on this subject. My
camera doesn't even have a built in meter, and it rarely leaves its
tripod. It's a great tool for nature photographs and portraits or
other mostly stationary subjects. I'd be a fool to try to use it to
photograph a football game.tony@emory.UUCP (Tony Vincent) (02/27/85)
In article <641@asgb.UUCP> mike@asgb.UUCP (Mike Rosenlof) writes: >[] > >> Is the new technology in cameras (like the new Canon) really worth it? > >I suppose it really depends on what kind of photography you want to >do. In my opinion, REAL photography requires lots of patience, >thought, and attention to detail. REAL Photographers (with a capital >'P') must consider all of the variables in exposure, composition, >lighting, and (preferably) processing and their effect towards the end >result of an expressive Photograph. > >Lately, the trend in 35mm photography has been toward a different >capital 'P'. It stands for 'Programmed', 'Point and shoot', and >'Push the button, we do the rest'. Many of these machines are really >very high quality Instamatics. They do a wonderful job of recording >events, but all of their programs and motors and auto-everything do >little if anything to advance the Art of Photography. > >On the other hand, I'll very quickly acknowledge that the >auto-everything machines are fine tools for the Art of >Photojournalism. - Please note the distinction between what I refer to >as two different Arts, in the same medium. > >Mike Rosenlof =========== I must totaly agree on both accounts. I have been both a REAL Photographer (<--notice the capital 'P') and a serious Photojournalist for many years now. I own a Canon A-1 and have been terribly pleased with it... I find that I NEVER do serious artistic photography with it in ANY of the auto modes (for those not familiar, it has both aperature and shutter priority as well as a full programmed mode....and others...). I do however find that when I am going to be taking LOTS of pictures of an event (particularly sports where you hardly even have time to focus) use the shutter priority mode most often and occasionally, and I do mean occasionally, I use the programmed mode. I find that aperature priority is a joke at best, since whenever depth of field really matters I always go manual. My biggest complait about the A-1 (this is my second A-1) is that when you are in manual the viewfinder tells you NOTHING about what your aperature is set at....he (the camera) does make a suggestion, but he fails to tell you where yours is set....I highly recomend the A-1 because of it's mostly brass body... yes, it does make it heavy, but it also makes it SO MUCH more durable (and if you saw what my camera has been though, you would NEVER buy one with a plastic body!) Any questions or comments?? Mail me, or better yet, let's discuss it here. And speaking of discussions, has anybody had any really fantastic experiences with a GOOD macro lens? -- Tony Vincent Emory University Dept of Math and CS Atlanta, Ga 30322 {akgua,sb1,gatech,decvax}!emory!tony USENET tony@emory CSNET tony.emory@csnet-relay ARPANET
ron@brl-tgr.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (02/27/85)
> [] > > > Is the new technology in cameras (like the new Canon) really worth it? > I agree, one of my criteria in selecting my last camera was that the manual mode must be convenient in addition to whatever automatic modes I could get. The Olympus was discarded because it didn't even have manual, some other one (Canon? it's been a couple of years) was too hard to run in non-auto mode. I admit, that frequently I go into INSTAMATIC mode on my SLR because I am really taking snapshots. But, I'll never get used to using the +/- exposures compensation on program mode (perhaps they should use lighten/darken like Poloroid does) or taking a reading with the center weighted meter and then shifting the frame by using manual mode. -Ron I own a poloroid 600 too.
herbie@watdcsu.UUCP (Herb Chong [DCS]) (02/27/85)
In article <1472@emory.UUCP> tony@emory.UUCP (Tony Vincent) writes: >>> Is the new technology in cameras (like the new Canon) really worth it? >> >>I suppose it really depends on what kind of photography you want to >>do. In my opinion, REAL photography requires lots of patience, >>thought, and attention to detail. REAL Photographers (with a capital >>'P') must consider all of the variables in exposure, composition, >>lighting, and (preferably) processing and their effect towards the end >>result of an expressive Photograph. >>... >>On the other hand, I'll very quickly acknowledge that the >>auto-everything machines are fine tools for the Art of >>Photojournalism. - Please note the distinction between what I refer to >>as two different Arts, in the same medium. >> >>Mike Rosenlof >=========== >...I find that I NEVER do serious >artistic photography with it in ANY of the auto modes... >I do however find that when I am going to be taking LOTS of pictures >of an event (particularly sports where you hardly even have time >to focus) use the shutter priority mode most often and occasionally, >and I do mean occasionally, I use the programmed mode.... >Tony Vincent i have two Pentax cameras, an MX, which is a fully manual camera that happens to have a builtin meter (it uses LEDs instead of a needle) and it doesn't depend upon batteries for functioning, and i have an ME Super Program, which has programmed, shutter- and aperture-priority exposure and other modes too (like the Canon A-1) and which is completely useless when the batteries die. `artistic' photography is something that i seldom do, but i have to agree that when doing that kind of work, you can determine exposure at your leisure and spend your time worrying about composition and lighting, which is AS IT SHOULD BE. automation is about as redundant as it is possible to be. the automatic exposure and progammed exposure cameras are for people who either don't have time or don't know how to expose properly, even with the aid of a meter (builtin or otherwise). most of the photography that i do would come under the photojournalism category. i am an advanced amateur, if my skill level had to be labelled. i have sold photo's to people other than my friends, but that doesn't make me semi-pro or anything. i find that i tend to use my ME Super Program in shutter priority most of the time and manual for a great deal of the rest. seldom do i use programmed or aperture priority. under the typical conditions that i work, i will take several hundred exposures in a few hour span under varying, though not wildly varying, lighting conditions. it is useful to know that my exposures will not be out by more than a stop or so whether i remember to change exposures or not, as i have had happen to me with my MX. both my cameras have winders that i purchased separately. for the type of work that i do, they are extremely handy, although by no means essential. they are too noisy for some applications. i have a small selection of lenses to cover my basic needs and have found that, for me anyway, lightness is of extreme importance, even more so than durability. try carrying a heavy camera, lens, winder, and flash around your neck for most of a day and you'll know what i mean. minor flame: who says photojournalists aren't REAL PHOTOGRAPHERS? they pay attention to the same things that any other serious photographer would. they just don't have as much time to do it and have to rely more on reflex and experience. it takes just a much skill. i have the suspicion that many photojournalistic photographers don't do `artistic' photography because they find it boring. Herb Chong... I'm user-friendly -- I don't byte, I nybble.... UUCP: {decvax|utzoo|ihnp4|allegra|clyde}!watmath!water!watdcsu!herbie CSNET: herbie%watdcsu@waterloo.csnet ARPA: herbie%watdcsu%waterloo.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa NETNORTH, BITNET, EARN: herbie@watdcs, herbie@watdcsu
eugene@ames.UUCP (Eugene Miya) (03/04/85)
> In article <1472@emory.UUCP> tony@emory.UUCP (Tony Vincent) writes: > >>> Is the new technology in cameras (like the new Canon) really worth it? > >> > >>I suppose it really depends on what kind of photography you want to > >>do. In my opinion, REAL photography requires lots of patience, > >>thought, and attention to detail. > minor flame: who says photojournalists aren't REAL PHOTOGRAPHERS? > they pay attention to the same things that any other serious > photographer would. > > Herb Chong... for my two-cents: in the end, it's the eye behind the camera. don't forget that a large percentage of some of the best photos in the world are taken only because there's a massive number of instamatics and polaroids out there. i own three old heavy slrs. they are throw away cameras [friends have dropped numerous slrs off cliffs, into crevices]. i have three because i left on at a lake near canada only to buy a new one and have the old one returned. the new tech can certainly help. and i think photojournalists are photographers. --eugene miya NASA Ames Research Center {hplabs,ihnp4,dual,hao,vortex}!ames!aurora!eugene emiya@ames-vmsb.ARPA
haapanen@watdcsu.UUCP (Tom Haapanen [DCS]) (03/05/85)
In article <641@asgb.UUCP> mike@asgb.UUCP (Mike Rosenlof) writes: >> Is the new technology in cameras (like the new Canon) really worth it? >I suppose it really depends on what kind of photography you want to >do. In my opinion, REAL photography requires lots of patience, >thought, and attention to detail. REAL Photographers (with a capital >'P') must consider all of the variables in exposure, composition, >lighting, and (preferably) processing and their effect towards the end >result of an expressive Photograph. > >Lately, the trend in 35mm photography has been toward a different >capital 'P'. It stands for 'Programmed', 'Point and shoot', and >'Push the button, we do the rest'. Many of these machines are really >very high quality Instamatics. They do a wonderful job of recording >events, but all of their programs and motors and auto-everything do >little if anything to advance the Art of Photography. > >On the other hand, I'll very quickly acknowledge that the >auto-everything machines are fine tools for the Art of >Photojournalism. - Please note the distinction between what I refer to >as two different Arts, in the same medium. Cameras were originally conceived (in the 1800's) as a recording devices. Photography was not considered an art form until much later. As you define Real Photography, I believe that you're putting much more of yourself in the picture than you are of the subject matter. I pass no judgement on whether that's good or bad, but it does result in a completely different result from (what could be called) Real Photojournalism. In the latter form, the primary concern is the subject at hand (be it a hockey game, a natural catastrophe or children playing in a sandbox) and the second concern is composition. The exposure and lighting you would usually (though not always) want to be *correct* rather than *expressive*, and programmed (as well as shutter-preferred and aperture-preferred) cameras go a long way in helping you achieve this. About the least useful combination in this type of photography is a match-needle camera with built-in metering; a view camera with an external meter just won't do. Hence the two types of photography professionals --- the ones carrying F-1's and the ones that have Hasselblads. However, I suggest that the two types of photography can both be called photography. They could be compared to, say, expressionism and realism in painting; they're both art, but any given painter will work with only one of them. So I submit that a Real Photographer *can* carry around a Canon A-1 or a Pentax Super Program. Such a camera will not force him to *think* about lighting and exposure, and he can concentrate on the subject and composition, catching dynamic subjects. It can still be art, can't it? Not that I mind the label of a Real Photojournalist that much... \tom haapanen watmath!watdcsu!haapanen Don't cry, don't do anything No lies, back in the government No tears, party time is here again President Gas is up for president (c) Psychedelic Furs, 1982