>From: George Sinos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Eliminating the technology threshold opens up the field to more folks >that >are good at seeing the image but not good technologists.
The "leaves you free to concentrate on framing" theory. I find increasingly that pros are trusting automation to handle the technical stuff because what really matters is content. More of my co-workers now use matrix-metering, AF, etc. As I understand it, Steve McCurry (the National Geographic afghan girl photographer) has always been in the "let the camera do the technical stuff" camp. I certainly have known pros with great image-capturing talent who were shaky technically. I'm more intrigued by the "technology inhibits greatness" argument that someone implied. Assuming that great photographers are a given percentage of the total, there should be MORE great photographers now because there are more photographers total. Given that web publishing is cheap and easy, we should be able to see lots of great photograpny. The argument, apparently, is that we don't and therefore it can be suspected that intelligent cameras are inhibiting greatness. I'm not sure I agree that we don't see more great photography, but I might believe that not having to really learn the technical basis of photography might stunt a photographer's development of his craft. The idea that you don't have to learn anything to get decent pictures may keep you from getting involved and aggressively working on technique. >From what I can see, in the areas where technology and automation are a big win in speed and ease of use, the photography HAS gotten a lot better. The standards in sports action and photojournalism have gotten a LOT higher. I'll betcha that the pictures that the average guy takes of his kids are better too, with AF that works and auto flash. Remember that a lot of the historic "great photos" were POSED, because you almost had to back then to guarantee you got what you wanted. That's fine for some kinds of work, but a moral slippery slope for others. The ethical standards have probably improved as the technical ability to get what you want without cheating has improved. In other sub-genres of photography where technical skill is still necessary (studio lights don't have a "program mode") or speed of working isn't an issue there is probably less positive impact of technology. Smarter cameras probably won't help develop the next Ansel Adams, and may actually work against it. They can be a real boon for the Weegees of the world. DJE
