Just what I was (not very clearly) trying to say with that long rant. It's almost impossible to engineer human judgement out of an artistic process.
Whenever they add a new feature to make the process simpler, they narrow the definition of "correct." That leads to additional options and adjustments for the user. Eventually, those options and adjustments, outnumber the original number of decisions you needed to make before all of the enhancements. In the end, this makes things more difficult for the beginner, who was the target audience. For those of us that read manuals and don't mind learning about this stuff, it might lead to more flexibility. That, however, is the exact opposite of what the camera manufacturers had in mind. They put many of those features on the camera to make them more foolproof for beginners. On the other hand, it keeps a steady stream of students signing up for my classes. So, I shouldn't complain. gs George Sinos -------------------- gsi...@gmail.com www.georgesphotos.net plus.georgesinos.com On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 11:42 AM, Paul Stenquist <pnstenqu...@comcast.net> wrote: > > On Jan 29, 2012, at 11:26 AM, George Sinos wrote: > >> In general, I appreciate the developments and improvements that the >> camera designers have come up with the give us better tools and extend >> our creative reach. >> >> At some point, it becomes problematic when they try to remove human >> judgement from the equation. >> >> For instance, the developments in auto-focus. >> >> At one point the human would pick the point in the image on which to >> focus, line up some little focusing aid in the viewfinder, the camera >> would then adjust the lens to focus on the point. >> >> Making that happen faster and more accurately were welcome developments. >> >> At some point, picking that point in the image was deemed too hard to >> teach and too much for the typical photographer to know. >> >> So, we came up with some algorithms to have the camera pick that >> focus point. Some worked better than others, but none of them worked >> (or work) all that well because every photographer is not trying to do >> the same thing in every image. >> >> So, we came up with custom functions that let the smarter and more >> persistent guys pick between super-duper-autofocus, spot focus, >> pick-your sensor focus and any number of names the marketing guys came >> up with. >> >> Now, instead of learning the simple act of aiming and focusing, we >> have to learn all of that stuff. >> >> After that, some genius figured that most of the time, if there is a >> face in the picture, that will be the place to focus the image. >> >> Cameras got smarter and learned how to detect and focus on faces. >> >> Of course, we got one more mode to pick from. And besides, it didn't >> always actually detect the face, and sometimes we took photos without >> faces in them. Even worse, sometimes there was more than one face in >> the photo and they were at different distances from the camera! >> >> Engineers, being smart, said we can fix that. Now we have face >> detection that detects every face in the photo, picks one of the faces >> for focus, highlights it in a different color so that we have the >> option of picking one of the other faces, if only we can remember what >> combination of buttons is used to pick a different face. >> >> All of that automation and stuff to learn just so that we don't have >> to learn how to focus. Wow. >> >> Take this example and apply it to histograms and jpg and raw as you >> wish. I'll step down from my soapbox now. >> >> GS >> >> George Sinos > > > > I would find the trend toward more technology disturbing if there were no > options. But since I can focus manually at will, or I can choose to use a > single autofocus point -- with the plus of being able to choose the location > of that pint -- the presence of other options doesn't bother me in the least. > Camera makers, for the most part, aren't brain dead. They're not going to > take away the options that many of us require. More technology is fine, since > it doesn't get in my way. > > Paul > > >> -------------------- >> gsi...@gmail.com >> www.georgesphotos.net >> plus.georgesinos.com >> >> >> >> On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 6:29 AM, Paul Stenquist <pnstenqu...@comcast.net> >> wrote: >>> >>> On Jan 29, 2012, at 12:16 AM, steve harley wrote: >>> >>>> on 2012-01-28 21:57 Paul Stenquist wrote >>>>> That's basically what today's best meters do. But they still can't gauge >>>>> reflectivity and color as well as the human eye can. The meter makes a >>>>> call and a good photographer makes the necessary adjustment. Most of the >>>>> time the meter will come close enough for all practical purposes. for >>>>> those times when it can't the photographer has to lend a hand. It >>>>> wouldn't be much fun if machines did all the work. >>>> >>>> i submit that most of us don't have "today's best meters" >>> >>> The K-5 comes somewhat close, but no it's not at the top of the heap. But >>> it's more than good enough when photographers use their brain as well as >>> their meters. >>> Paul >>>> >>>> -- >>>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>>> PDML@pdml.net >>>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >>>> follow the directions. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>> PDML@pdml.net >>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >>> follow the directions. >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> PDML@pdml.net >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >> follow the directions. > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
