The profession of photography is said to have changed more in the past 20 years than in the last century. With each improvement in equipment, many photographers cannot avoid groans, who believe that technology will eliminate craftsmanship. Is that well-founded or misleading?
I own a Fujifilm GFX 50R, a medium format digital body. On top of that body is a very fast manual focus lens that delivers razor-thin, subtle depth of field on images captured with it, if you try to focus. Since acquiring this combination, I have been a bit obsessed with medium format photography in extended mode. This is not a unique hobby, and I’m sure many will criticize the extent to which I chose to go wide, even though it was always just for fun and not for the client. There are a few reasons why I like shooting this way. The first thing is obvious: I like the aesthetic created by the medium format sensor and f/1.4 on the aforementioned sensor. Then I also like the manual focus factor when combined with the narrow depth of field. To get the visual style I wanted, I had to work pretty hard; It’s too easy to miss the focus entirely.
A friend of mine, an avid but qualified photographer, commented on how much they liked these photos on several occasions. We discussed how I create the look and what goes into the shot. Then something happened that threw me through a loop. I took a photo on my girlfriend and son’s iPhone, and when my friends saw it, they commented on how great the medium format image is. Now, this is an amateur (self-described), so there’s no point in putting too much weight on the mistake, but I edited the photo to look a bit like a medium format photo, and it looks similar.
To produce the same shot on my medium format body and manual focus lens would be significantly more complicated and, most likely, wouldn’t look much different. It’s not news when phone cameras are extremely powerful right now and are always making their way into the field of dedicated cameras. With a combination of AI and clever design, they can recreate many of the effects that were once a great skill in photography. The most recent example that has now reached the point of being almost indistinguishable is a long exposure.
Yes, there is still a difference in the end result, especially for the trained eye. Also, its file size and how malleable it is in post-processing is often different from a dedicated camera. But, above all those fees, it hardly ever matters. Most people can’t tell the difference, and most applications of images won’t display the image anywhere close to its actual size. The more interesting question here is how all this technology impacts photographers.
Dedicated camera versus phone is an exhausting discussion. For me, a more interesting discussion, at least, is how all this technology is changing the industry. After all, while phone cameras have improved at knots, so have dedicated cameras. Modern bodies now come with a number of great, quality-of-life features, from Eye AF to long exposure and real-time compositing. All of these make it easier to get the desired shot in a way that was not possible a few years ago, and often, they replace a skill in photography.
As digital photography more or less replaced film photography, there was an inevitable backlash from photographers, who felt as if the skills needed to be a good photographer had been lost. decrease. No doubt they’re right that there’s no longer any need to hang film in your bathtub, but are they also right when it comes to using a camera? If you can check your image as you move, you can adjust exposure and composition until it’s perfect, something you wouldn’t be able to do with prior know-how and experience. .
Now, digital photography didn’t quite have a moment of change as important as the transition from analog to digital, but it did have countless smaller events. The most obvious and impactful for me is the aforementioned Eye AF. I assigned it to a back button on my Sony and never missed the focus of a portrait on the subject’s eye again. They even added it to animal activity! I used to have to work hard to get the focus, even with autofocus (which has another, similar discussion), but now it’s more or less free. You might also get more confused with this line of questions: I used to have to do marksman-taught breathing techniques for handheld shooting in low light, but now image stabilization in body (IBIS) so good that i can get shot while jumping if i imagine.
What does this mean for the photographer? Is taking pictures easier? Yes, yes, clear in some ways. As a father and uncle of young children, I can confirm that Eye AF has increased the number of followers by a decent amount, although the photos, if taken without Eye AF and if successful, will be identical. There are many examples of this, and so it is undeniable that taking some pictures is objectively easier to do and requires less skill on the part of the photographer. The argument that resulted was that photography was easier to do and the bar was lowered. This is the point I disagree with.
With the fundamentals easier in photography, the bar has not been lowered at all. The learning curve has been smoothed out and beginners can get properly exposed and in-focus shots almost instantly, but in practice that adds to the problem. The average is much higher than it was a few decades ago, as what are the skills and marks of a good photographer is now simply the bare minimum. As a result, we expect more, especially since we’re not only taking more photos than ever before by a giant factor, but also viewing more photos with the same increased ratio. Getting your photos to go viral has always been hard work, but now it’s hard in a way that can feel insurmountable; you are a grain of sand in the Sahara.
However, there are plenty of quality-of-life improvements for photographers. Whether you’re shooting in automatic mode on the highest spec camera or in manual mode on an old medium format body, crutches (for a better word) allow you to practice Focus on what really matters: capturing a memorable image. For most photographers, love of the craft is not mastering the settings, but the outcome of them. Sure, it’s gratifying to become proficient in any skill, but knowing what settings to use is a means to an end. By freeing your mind from trying to focus on a moving eye, control the unbelievably wide dynamic range of a scene, or keep the camera still adequate for shooting in ambient lighting conditions. low but beautiful, you can focus on everything else. great visuals: composition, lighting, feel of the final photo.
For me, technology – while admittedly making images that are properly exposed and in focus is easier – is unleashing as creativity. I thoroughly enjoy shooting on film and using manual focus and manual settings on digital bodies, but the modern conveniences of contemporary photography allow that to be an option. . You can focus on shooting and being creative whenever you choose, and it’s hard to imagine that could be a negative for the profession.
What do you think? Does lowering the barrier to entry into photography erode our disciplinary skills or raise the bar? Does it do both at the same time? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.
