F100 - Err - Grrrr!
Roger L. Bunting
Saturday I purchased a new F100. Due to a busy weekend schedule that
did not include photography, there wasn't much time to check out the
modes and operation although I did exercise as many of the features as
I could and set the +/- EV option to half instead of third stops. I
put the camera away until last night to experiment with dynamic
autofocus before putting in film. When I started checking out the AF
functions, the LCD started displaying just Err, nothing blinking, no
way to clear except fire off a frame at which time the exposure info
reappeared briefly before the Err showed up again. None of the 'multi'
functions work (e.g. multiple exposure, bracketing, continuous
exposure, etc). I reset the camera to default, reset the custom
functions, removed the batteries for a while, no change, just Err.
Today it's back to the dealer - I'm sure (?) they will exchange it on
the spot. I did pick a large dealer some distance away because it was
to be a big purchase day and we needed some choice.
The other part to this story is I picked the F100 and a 50mm f1.4 AFD
to replace my recently undependable 8008. My spouse gently (smile)
pushed me toward the Nikon gear (over what I had really gone to check
out, a 90mm Elmarit-M for my Leica M3/M6). I normally carry the
two/three cameras since the Leica gear has always covered the 'fast'
normal range for me. I've always been somewhat amused at the
mechanical over battery debate in cameras. My 8008 has until recently
been utterly dependable and so has my Leica gear. Now my new great
bells and whistles camera, one to do everthing like mindeless
bracketing is perfectly content to display 'Err' and not take
pictures.
Now to defend technology a little, my spouse also picked up a CoolPix
and she's taking pictures (and editing pictures, and sorting pictures,
and ... ). Now I also have to worry about batteries, no batteries,
film, digital. Guess it's time for some Tri-X and the M3.
From one who's got one foot in the canoe and one on the dock, seems
like the boat is drifting away...) It's always disappointing when you
reach into the grab bag and get the sample variance.
Just venting, a little....
Regards,
R.L.Bunting
<To respond by email, please edit the email domain as directed.>
Chuck Ross
<rlbunting@NO_SPAM_AT.lucent.com> wrote:
> Well shucks!
>
> Saturday I purchased a new F100. Due to a busy weekend schedule that
> did not include photography, there wasn't much time to check out the
> modes and operation although I did exercise as many of the features as
> I could and set the +/- EV option to half instead of third stops. I
> put the camera away until last night to experiment with dynamic
> autofocus before putting in film. When I started checking out the AF
> functions, the LCD started displaying just Err, nothing blinking, no
> way to clear except fire off a frame at which time the exposure info
> reappeared briefly before the Err showed up again. None of the 'multi'
> functions work (e.g. multiple exposure, bracketing, continuous
> exposure, etc). I reset the camera to default, reset the custom
> functions, removed the batteries for a while, no change, just Err.
Ummm...you did have the lens set at the smallest aperture, right?
--
ckr...@home.com
http://www.members.home.net/ckross
Digital and film-based photography
Gary Frost
I'm trying to remember my 8008s..... doesn't it ERR when you try
to take pictures without film in it?? Ok, I'll quit responding
to posts about computerized cameras since I don't own any...
Gary Frost
Roger L. Bunting
>In article <h366ONnHUqdbONh=dwcOv1...@4ax.com>, Roger L. Bunting
><rlbunting@NO_SPAM_AT.lucent.com> wrote:
>
>> Well shucks!
>>
>> Saturday I purchased a new F100. Due to a busy weekend schedule that
>> did not include photography, there wasn't much time to check out the
>> modes and operation although I did exercise as many of the features as
>> I could and set the +/- EV option to half instead of third stops. I
>> put the camera away until last night to experiment with dynamic
>> autofocus before putting in film. When I started checking out the AF
>> functions, the LCD started displaying just Err, nothing blinking, no
>> way to clear except fire off a frame at which time the exposure info
>> reappeared briefly before the Err showed up again. None of the 'multi'
>> functions work (e.g. multiple exposure, bracketing, continuous
>> exposure, etc). I reset the camera to default, reset the custom
>> functions, removed the batteries for a while, no change, just Err.
>
>Ummm...you did have the lens set at the smallest aperture, right?
Chuck,
Good point, yes I tried several lenses all set to min aperature and
one AI'd 24mm MF lens. I was pleased to see that the AI'd lens
automatically caused the viewfinder display to switch to Aperture
preferred and the metering to (spot/center - one - saw it only once).
The LCD display did not seem to change automatically.
I just spoke with the dealer and they gave me the 'take out the
battery routine' and the 'insert film' suggestion as a way to clear
the malfunction. I've already tried removing the battery and I'ts
sitting at home right now without the batteries. That may work but
still doesn't let me 'dry fire' the camera to get used to the
functions. They suggested that I probably 'hit some function/button'
to cause the problem and that adding film would clear 'Err'. Seems
like some 'reset' should do it then, but I'll try the film next.
If that works, then looks like Nikon forgot about 'reboot'.
Morgan
in a photo shop if it couldn't (& that's all I've done with this
camera). There is a custom function to let you set aperture
using the ring instead of a command wheel if you want (I do!).
-M
Alan
> If that works, then looks like Nikon forgot about 'reboot'.
>
and you forgot to set to smallest aperture on the lens and LOCK
it.......theres the key word, its a small lever that sets it in
place......next to the aperture ring...
Jack Daynes
Aren't you confusing "Err" with "fEE"? When neglecting the minimum
aperture setting in "S" or "P" any Nikon I've used (n6006, n70,
f4s) the error you get is the "fEE". My F4s won't operate without
film if the film speed is set to "DX". The fix for that problem is
either put in a film canister or set the film speed manually. Can't
speak to the F100, but it could be related.
--
Jack
;~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~;
/ Remove ".NOSPAM." for email replies /
\____________________________________/
X-No-Archive:yes
Chuck Ross
<jack...@ho.NOSPAM.me.com> wrote:
> Alan wrote:
>
> > >
> > > If that works, then looks like Nikon forgot about 'reboot'.
> > >
> >
> > and you forgot to set to smallest aperture on the lens and LOCK
> > it.......theres the key word, its a small lever that sets it in
> > place......next to the aperture ring...
>
> Aren't you confusing "Err" with "fEE"? When neglecting the minimum
> aperture setting in "S" or "P" any Nikon I've used (n6006, n70,
> f4s) the error you get is the "fEE". My F4s won't operate without
> film if the film speed is set to "DX". The fix for that problem is
> either put in a film canister or set the film speed manually. Can't
> speak to the F100, but it could be related.
Alan, you are correct. I didn't have my cap on straight when I
mentioned the lens' smallest aperture...if that were not set it
would indeed say "fEE" not "err".
However, the F100 does dry fire. You can play with it forever
without film in it and it shouldn't go into the 'err' condition.
This definitely sounds like a broken camera, and I would get it
back to the dealer's and get a new one.
My F100 went into 'err' once, but danged if I can remember the
circumstances. When I tried repeating the problem, I couldnt'
reproduce it.
Chuck Ross
<ckross...@home.com> wrote:
> In article <38BAC95A...@ho.NOSPAM.me.com>, Jack Daynes
> <jack...@ho.NOSPAM.me.com> wrote:
>
> > Alan wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > > > If that works, then looks like Nikon forgot about 'reboot'.
> > > >
> > >
> > > and you forgot to set to smallest aperture on the lens and LOCK
> > > it.......theres the key word, its a small lever that sets it in
> > > place......next to the aperture ring...
> >
> > Aren't you confusing "Err" with "fEE"? When neglecting the minimum
> > aperture setting in "S" or "P" any Nikon I've used (n6006, n70,
> > f4s) the error you get is the "fEE". My F4s won't operate without
> > film if the film speed is set to "DX". The fix for that problem is
> > either put in a film canister or set the film speed manually. Can't
> > speak to the F100, but it could be related.
(whoops....I should have said.....)
>
> Jack, you are correct. I didn't have my cap on straight when I
Roger L. Bunting
>Well shucks!
>
>Saturday I purchased a new F100. Due to a busy weekend schedule that
snip...
> When I started checking out the AF
>functions, the LCD started displaying just Err, nothing blinking, no
>way to clear except fire off a frame at which time the exposure info
>reappeared briefly before the Err showed up again. None of the 'multi'
>functions work (e.g. multiple exposure, bracketing, continuous
>exposure, etc). I reset the camera to default, reset the custom
>functions, removed the batteries for a while, no change, just Err.
>
>Today it's back to the dealer - I'm sure (?) they will exchange it on
>the spot. I did pick a large dealer some distance away because it was
>to be a big purchase day and we needed some choice.
>
Well the dealer confirmed that it was a defective unit. He remarked
that it was defective as soon as he hit the power switch and the 'Err'
showed up. Didn't even try the shutter. Well, he did later. None of
the continuous advance functions worked like C, Cs, BKT, etc. His
words were "hmmmm, err not good". Without missing a heartbeat, reached
for a new camera. This time we both checked it out before I drove back
to the burbs and I'll be testing it tonight with film. BTW: the
defective one dry fired for a half hour or so while I was exercising l
the functions in the manual. There was nothing that I could do to
'reset' the camera.
Everything seems to work on the new one, but then so did the old one
for the first half hour.
Time will tell.. thanks for listening
Woodard R. Springstube
this group, it seems that the F-100 has bugs in either the software or in
the manufacturing process, or (worst of all) in the design.
I used to think that I had the hots for one, but, now I think that I'll wait
a year or two to see if Nikon can fix the problems.
Woodard Springstube
ILNikonFan
Woodard R. Springstube wrote in message <89ene9$qpv$1...@news.jump.net>...
Woodard ;
You don't have to wait. Nikon made some modifications last year for these
types of problems. I have one of the upgraded samples (based upon serial
no.) and don't have any problems. I think that the F100 body has been
debugged. You just have to be aware about the reported problems and insist
on the upgraded unit when buying new.
Jim
Dan
_____________________________
Dan
(remove xspamx to send email replies)
"ILNikonFan" <jga...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:89eomo$k...@journal.concentric.net...
Chuck Ross
<d...@xspamxhome.com> wrote:
> So what's the magic serial number that we should inspect as the cut-off?
> _____________________________
> Dan
> (remove xspamx to send email replies)
I believe it's above 2050000
Mark Bergman
operator error. One should read the manual on these cameras, they aren't
like a Leica M.
"Woodard R. Springstube" <spri...@jump.net> wrote in message
news:89ene9$qpv$1...@news.jump.net...
carl valle
when i loaded the very first roll of film in the F100 i got an ERR message.
It was cuz i loaded the film incorrectly - pretty hard to do but i did it
anyway.
but yes i know the F100 will dry fire - The help of a dealer is always
needed with these complicated systems - but i havenever had an error message
or problem with any function
mine is serial 2100281
Mark Bergman <mb5...@navix.net> wrote in message
news:89fann$soh$1...@iac5.navix.net...
Ilkka Haapavirta
groups appear only on low battery levels.
Remember that F100 needs fresh good batteries for all those fancy functions.
And, unfortunately, the F100 battery indicator is of little help here.
Ilkka
Mark Bergman wrote in message <89fann$soh$1...@iac5.navix.net>...
Mac Breck
> >this group, it seems that the F-100 has bugs in either the software or in
> >the manufacturing process, or (worst of all) in the design.
> >
> >I used to think that I had the hots for one, but, now I think that I'll
> wait
> >a year or two to see if Nikon can fix the problems.
> >
> >Woodard Springstube
>
>
>
>
> You don't have to wait. Nikon made some modifications last year for these
> types of problems. I have one of the upgraded samples (based upon serial
> no.) and don't have any problems. I think that the F100 body has been
> debugged. You just have to be aware about the reported problems and insist
> on the upgraded unit when buying new.
And how can I tell if they actually send me an "upgraded unit" ? What's the
first serial number of these upgraded units?
Mac
Lefty
Hi:
I saw a similar post about updating (de-bugging) the F-100 on this newsgroup
yesterday and called Nikon today bringing it to their attention. For what
its worth, they strongly deny that any such up-grade thing has happened. I
hope they were correct. My nearly year old F-100 has been flawless so far
and I hope that continues. Best Regards, Bob
Mac Breck <macb...@timesnet.net> wrote in message news:EB.
Lim Meng Shi
>it.......theres the key word, its a small lever that sets it in
>place......next to the aperture ring...
Not true, you don't have to lock it. Just set it to the minimum
aperture setting.
Gene Windell
wrote:
>IMHO most, if not all, the problems reported on this news group is due to
>operator error. One should read the manual on these cameras, they aren't
>like a Leica M.
>
>"Woodard R. Springstube" <spri...@jump.net> wrote in message
>news:89ene9$qpv$1...@news.jump.net...
>> On the whole, and given the number of problems that have been reported on
>> this group, it seems that the F-100 has bugs in either the software or in
>> the manufacturing process, or (worst of all) in the design.
>>
>> I used to think that I had the hots for one, but, now I think that I'll
>wait
>> a year or two to see if Nikon can fix the problems.
I really get a kick out of these discussions. I think the average
F-100 owner could get just as much satisfaction at a lot less expense
by simply buying a Nintendo Gameboy. Meanwhile, I keep on earning my
living with the old FE2 and Mamiya 6 cameras. I couldn't afford the
loss to my reputation that would come will accepting an F-100 for
free.
Gene Windell
Spock's Brain
"Gene Windell" <ewin...@psci.net> wrote in message
news:38bf0cdc...@news.psci.net...
Gene man, do you have any actual advice - or are you just going to keep
taking potshots at people who don't feel the need to eschew modern
technology? I get the feeling that you're just a bitter old curmudgeon
who's just pissed off because he has the feeling that the rest of the world
is enjoying the new cameras that he just couldn't get his head around. Just
going manual isn't the solution to the world's camera problems. And while
you may be making money without automation, there are plenty of people who
are doing quite well with "Nintendo Gameboy" cameras. So, instead of taking
every opportunity to lambaste someone who had the nerve to buy an AF camera,
why not share some of your supposed camera wisdom. You might be amazed, but
you can do most everything you can do with a manual camera using an AF
camera (short of a few full-auto things that are more P&Ss than real
cameras, and I don't mean the F100). So come on, prove you aren't just some
old fogie who just wants to be a pain in the ass and say things like "You
kids don't know what it means to be a photographer, I had to walk twenty
miles in the snow to take a picture, and the camera didn't even flip the
mirror back up." Your full-manual blatheries become tiring after awhile,
and they still don't solve any problems.
Anders Svensson
> On Mon, 28 Feb 2000 20:30:26 -0800, "Mark Bergman" <mb5...@navix.net>
> wrote:
>
> >IMHO most, if not all, the problems reported on this news group is due to
> >operator error. One should read the manual on these cameras, they aren't
> >like a Leica M.
> >
> >"Woodard R. Springstube" <spri...@jump.net> wrote in message
> >news:89ene9$qpv$1...@news.jump.net...
> >> On the whole, and given the number of problems that have been reported on
> >> this group, it seems that the F-100 has bugs in either the software or in
> >> the manufacturing process, or (worst of all) in the design.
> >>
> >> I used to think that I had the hots for one, but, now I think that I'll
> >wait
> >> a year or two to see if Nikon can fix the problems.
>
> I really get a kick out of these discussions. I think the average
> F-100 owner could get just as much satisfaction at a lot less expense
> by simply buying a Nintendo Gameboy. Meanwhile, I keep on earning my
> living with the old FE2 and Mamiya 6 cameras. I couldn't afford the
> loss to my reputation that would come will accepting an F-100 for
> free.
>
> Gene Windell
This is the same argumentatation that was heard in the 70's when the first word
processors started to show up. "Give me a good typewriter every time, these
printouts are no good..." was quite common in that day. Even the medieval monks
said the same to Gutenberg... New technology need to be understood to be
useful, and a qualified user will get results out of non-automatic cameras as
well as Shakespeare was able to get the right words in the right order without a
wordprocessor. One problem is also that doing the things you can do well with
familiar equipment is usually far faster than relearnning and doing it after
that. A well known trap for professionals in any profession.
But the original poster made a very good point about reading the manual. It is
extremely common that what is regarded as problems with a camera simply are user
errors or misconceptions and with regard to the complexity of modern cameras,
this is perhaps not surprising. But RTFM is still good advice.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
Anders Svensson
Anders.-.Ei...@swipnet.se
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tom
>"Gene Windell" <ewin...@psci.net> wrote in message
>> F-100 owner could get just as much satisfaction at a lot less expense
>> by simply buying a Nintendo Gameboy. Meanwhile, I keep on earning my
>> living with the old FE2 and Mamiya 6 cameras. I couldn't afford the
>> loss to my reputation that would come will accepting an F-100 for
>> free.
>Gene man, do you have any actual advice - or are you just going to keep
>taking potshots at people who don't feel the need to eschew modern
>technology? I get the feeling that you're just a bitter old curmudgeon
>who's just pissed off because he has the feeling that the rest of the world
>is enjoying the new cameras that he just couldn't get his head around. Just
>going manual isn't the solution to the world's camera problems. And while
>you may be making money without automation, there are plenty of people who
>are doing quite well with "Nintendo Gameboy" cameras. So, instead of taking
>every opportunity to lambaste someone who had the nerve to buy an AF camera,
>why not share some of your supposed camera wisdom. You might be amazed, but
>you can do most everything you can do with a manual camera using an AF
>camera (short of a few full-auto things that are more P&Ss than real
>cameras, and I don't mean the F100). So come on, prove you aren't just some
>old fogie who just wants to be a pain in the ass and say things like "You
>kids don't know what it means to be a photographer, I had to walk twenty
>miles in the snow to take a picture, and the camera didn't even flip the
>mirror back up." Your full-manual blatheries become tiring after awhile,
>and they still don't solve any problems.
Let me add my perspective by giving an example.
A couple of weekends ago I had a major gig (ie, 10,000 watt seconds
of light to illuminate the inside of an avaiation museum, radio
triggering, a second photographer for candids, my usual assistant, two
roadies, etc.).
I had never used this second photographer before, but I had seen her
work and was impressed. She was used to using an n-90, sb-26 rig. As
the ambient light levels were low, she immediately had problems with
balancing strobe and ambient light levels. The shutter speed that the
camera recommended on "slow-synch" was too slow, and using regular
synch would have been too fast to see any of the museum lights.
I suggested switching to manual mode and "dragging the shutter" at a
nice intermediate value around 1/30th or so just to get a hint of the
ambient illumination. Well, she just about had a nervious breakdown,
admitting that she only knew how to use full automation, this was not
the place to try something new (I assured her it wasn't exactly a new
concept), etc. etc. Needless to say, given her nerviousness from the
pressure, I didn't press the issue a few minutes before the wedding
was to start.
When her shots came back, it was obvious that she indeed had a good
eye for composition and good people skills, but as to be expected all
backgrounds on her candids were jet black. For all one could tell,
the wedding might have been taking place at Stonehenge at night.
Needless to say, I wasn't happy, and my reputation sufferend a bit
because of this.
To me the take-home message was that here is an accomplished younger
photographer that unfortunately missed one of the basic parts of her
photographic education by her over-reliance on automation.
To give you an idea of my attitudes, I shot the formals entirely on
manual MF, but I also have an F-100 and, as needed, defeat whatever
parts of the automation are getting in my way.
(And just to freak people out & see what comments I get, every now and
then I put my 28-70 2.8 AFS on my 1964 vintage Nikon F body and
grumble about the lack of a "T" setting on the new-fangled bodies -
They just don't make them like they used to, etc. etc. - grin).
Just my $0.02
Tom
Washington, DC
Mac Breck
news:38BF6CBE...@swipnet.se...
> One problem is also that doing the things you can do well with
> familiar equipment is usually far faster than relearnning and doing it
after
> that. A well known trap for professionals in any profession.
The problem is now that I've bought and paid for my manual focus equipment,
and am very familiar with it, I'm hesitant to sink $1300 into an F100,
probably $2000 into a 17-35 AF-S, and ~$1500 each into a 28-70 AF-S and a
80-200 AF-S, given the problems with the F100, and AF Nikkor Durability
issues aired in this newsgroup. It's fear of the unknown, and possibly
getting a lemon, I guess.
Mac
Photo Guy
Mac Breck wrote in message ...
usually deserve.
Most of the time, I read about some piece of gear that I own and I am
horrified that I purchased such crap. The I remember that not only have I
never had the problem but the gear works very well for me in the situation
described.
I guess there are three factors at work. 1) Few read the manuals carefully
(which are often written poorly) and take the time to learn the equipment,
2) Some people have expectations of their equipment that exceed mine ("I
paid $xxx for it and it doesn't meter snowmen correctly...") and 3) Once in
a while, something is actually defective.
Anders Svensson
> "Anders Svensson" <Anders.-.Ei...@swipnet.se> wrote in message
> news:38BF6CBE...@swipnet.se...
> > One problem is also that doing the things you can do well with
> > familiar equipment is usually far faster than relearnning and doing it
> after
> > that. A well known trap for professionals in any profession.
>
> The problem is now that I've bought and paid for my manual focus equipment,
> and am very familiar with it, I'm hesitant to sink $1300 into an F100,
> probably $2000 into a 17-35 AF-S, and ~$1500 each into a 28-70 AF-S and a
> 80-200 AF-S, given the problems with the F100, and AF Nikkor Durability
> issues aired in this newsgroup. It's fear of the unknown, and possibly
> getting a lemon, I guess.
>
> Mac
I belive that in any given mixed population of experts, real or imagined, very
few brands or items will get universal praise. I would seriously think about a
purchase of that magnitude for a lot of reasons, but lack of quality or fear of
getting a bad camera body in the F100 isn't one of them.
I suggest some source critizism when it comes to judging opinions on the NG - a
lot of people here seem to speak from rather thin experince and knowledge bases
as well as the many people that obviously know very well what they speak about.
Roger L. Bunting
>Well shucks!
>
snip ....
>
>Just venting, a little....
>
>Regards,
>R.L.Bunting
Thanks to all who responded on this. Contrary to what you might be
paranoid to read into some of the responses, the problem was unusual
and it was a bad camera. The dealer replaced it on the spot. It was
definitely established that it was
a) not bad batteries, the origginal batteries are still powering the
dealer-replaced F100 and supporting several hours of investingation,
dry firing, as well as, live firing.
b) not the lens aperature (max, min or lock) AF or manual
c) not film loading (or lack thereof, or technique)
d) not from lack of reading the manual
e) not from lack of interest
f) not from lack of mechanical camera experience or ownership
g) the serial number of the old and new unit were both 207xxxxx
It appears that it was simply a defective unit.
Final assessment. Pic's look great, love the handling, great balance
and ergonomics. The viewfinder is useable with high eye-relief glasses
and so far, nearly total control over the automation. A suitable
platform for my zoom and prime AF and manual Nikkor's. I'd do it again
for all the same reasons.
Last and not least it is a great supplement to my primary system - an
Olympus Stylus Epic (smile).
Spock's Brain
"Tom" <spam-...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:38bf8eb5...@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
> To me the take-home message was that here is an accomplished younger
> photographer that unfortunately missed one of the basic parts of her
> photographic education by her over-reliance on automation.
I've never suggested complete reliance on automation - but going the
complete opposite way isn't really the answer. I agree that your assistant
should have known better (at the very least, she should have been able to
add some negative flash compensation to adjust the ratio of flash to ambient
without going to slow-sync - maybe she would have understood that?), but
that isn't proof that use of automation is wrong. Merely that if you're
going to be doing a job like that, you should know what you're doing (and
that your assistants should as well). It should have been easy to do (and
I've done it) even without turning off the automation. Also, you did ask
her if she had done this work before and knew what to do in a situation
where hand holding the camera at slow-sync speeds would have been a problem,
right? Don't mean to be harsh, but you can't just blame automation - your
assistant's lack of experience had some part in the matter.
Gene Windell
<some...@overtherainbow.com> wrote:
>Gene man, do you have any actual advice - or are you just going to keep
>taking potshots at people who don't feel the need to eschew modern
>technology?
My actual advice is that impressive image quality results from the
application of knowledge, skill and effort on the part of the
photographer. While camera automation will inarguably speed up the
process of picture taking, there are extremely few circumstances where
the amount of time needed to focus the image or set the exposure is a
determining factor. More often, camera automation (like zoom lenses)
are chosen purely for the convenience offered instead of a requirement
by the image.
You've no doubt heard that the Nazarene religion discourages sex
standing up - because they know it can lead to dancing. The same
principle applies to camera automation and convenience. It leads the
photographer to avoid the knowledge, skill and effort that producing
impressive images requires.
I know that not all, and perhaps very few readers of this forum seek
to become accomplished photographers. But for those few who have that
ambition, my message is that camera automation will not take you where
you want to go. The only thing that will get you where you want to go
is the study and learning of technique, and unrelenting effort.
Relying on automation as a substitute for learning technique or
applying effort will take you in exactly the wrong direction.
>I get the feeling that you're just a bitter old curmudgeon
>who's just pissed off because he has the feeling that the rest of the world
>is enjoying the new cameras that he just couldn't get his head around.
I understand that perception. But as I've publicly confessed before,
I am a reconstructed gearhead and gadget freak. In my younger days,
it was very important to me to be the first kid on the block to own
the latest camera technology. When autoexposure 35mm SLR's were first
introduced, I was first in line to buy one (and a second, and third).
When autofocusing cameras were first introduced, I was first in line
to buy one (and a second, and third). And I "upgraded" as quickly as
some new model came out that interested me.
In my amateur photography days, like everyone else I was quite content
to get 1 or 2 "keepers" from a roll of film. But looking back, I now
realize that I wasn't really interested in taking pictures at all.
Instead, I was only taking pictures to justify owning the equipment.
It was owning, and fondling, and playing around with the equipment,
and reading about it in magazines and discussing it with my friends -
that was what I really loved. I really didn't give a shit about the
pictures.
I'm certain that the many thousands of dollars I wasted over a 10 year
period by "upgrading" my camera gear every 12 months contributed in no
small way to my first divorce. But losing my wife is not what cured
me of my obsession with camera technology. In fact, without a wife to
keep a lid on my spending - I really went wild. What finally cured my
illness was a life-changing event which stemmed from the utter
humiliation I was caused by a computerized camera's failure to
perform.
I was given an assigment to shoot some publicity photos under what
turned out to be extreme lighting conditions outdoors at night, and
the camera would not autofocus. Worse, I had the camera in a "mode"
that prevented the shutter from operating if the shutter speed fell
below a certain speed. Fumbling in the dark, I couldn't see the LCD
panel or figure out which tiny buttons to push to get the camera into
a "mode" that would allow me to take pictures - however out of focus
they may have been. I ended up with no pictures at all.
The point is, my formal college training in photography didn't save
me. My many years of owning my own darkroom equipment and making my
own prints didn't save me. Having a Pentax 6X7 and a Minolta incident
light meter back home in the closet didn't save me. All my years of
being a camera techno-enthusiast with monthly subscriptions to
Peterson's Photographic, Modern Photography and Popular Photography
magazines didn't save me. There I was, working the most important
assignment I'd ever been given, with a computerized camera that
wouldn't allow me to take a single picture.
Now, that is just an anecdote and no more significant than any other.
In hindsight, anyone can say "oh, well - - you should have done this
or you should have done that." But the point is - I didn't. And what
got me into that situation to begin with was the false confidence I
had developed in computerized cameras. Realizing how my own thinking
had lead me to that situation is what really changed my life.
And because of humiliation and damage to my pride caused by that
single disaster, I got rid of every single piece of still photography
equipment I owned. I took a 10 year haitus from photography, and
didn't take 1 single still picture during all that time. Instead, I
got deeply into video production and editing - which kept me quite
occupied for a long time. And it was only there that I started
developing an interest in lighting technique.
It was only about 3 years ago that I opened my own small town photo
studio. During the preceding 10 years I often contemplated what
psychological force had driven me to desire high-tech cameras or what
I hoped to accomplish by using them. I can't speak for others, but in
my case a major component was "bragging rights" combined with simple
laziness. Automation would give me acceptable snapshots, and I was
able to make myself content with that. Of course, back then I would
have denied that with every fiber of my being. Lying to other people
is not nearly so damaging as lying to one's self.
It was only after I became a full-time professional that I realized
how much I had failed to learn about about photography during the
preceding 25 years. As a "serious amateur," getting 1 or 2 "keepers"
per roll is good enough. As a professional, I learned that 1 or 2
"losers" per roll was too many. It was only after I learned that my
clients were expecting me to produce an impressive, saleable image,
every time I pressed the shutter button, that I discovered what camera
operation is really all about.
What makes or breaks a picture is the lighting. Second in importance
behind that is the composition. And behind those two things, how long
it takes you to focus the lens and set the exposure are almost
irrelevant. Yet, the typical camera enthusiast is interested only in
how may frames per second he can fire, and how many micro-seconds are
required to autofocus his camera at the statue of George Washington
with the pigeon sitting on his head.
If you aren't controlling every aspect of the lighting, either by
adding to what is already there or subtracting away from it - you're
just shooting snapshots. And once you start putting the thought, time
and effort into controlling the lighting - whatever benefits there may
be to a computerized camera go straight out the window. You can't
control lighting without measuring what you are doing, and that
requires a hand-held meter. When you use a hand-held meter, whatever
type of metering and exposure automation you have built into the
camera is quickly recognized as a redundancy if not a nuisance. The
more technically complex a camera may be, the more likely it is to
fail - according to Murphy's Law, at the worst possible moment.
> Just going manual isn't the solution to the world's camera problems.
Well, that depends on what one perceives the world's camera problems
to be. If a person feels that shooting their little snapshots with a
Nikon F100 is still too difficult and inconvenient, a newer model will
come out in a few years which will make everything far more easy. If
they can't wait that long, they could upgrade right now to an Canon
ELPH APS camera.
On the other hand, the photographer may perceive that all of their
snapshots look about the same and are mundane and boring. If that is
the case, what they need to do is learn lighting technique. Once you
start applying sophisticated lighting techniques your pictures are no
longer boring. But neither are you getting any usefullness out of all
the whizz-bang computerized features of your camera.
> And while you may be making money without automation, there are plenty of people who
>are doing quite well with "Nintendo Gameboy" cameras.
Some types of photography lend themselves to shooting snapshots. You
know what they are. They are the kinds of pictures where all of the
viewer interest is derived from the subject matter alone - such as a
UFO landing on the White House lawn, or Hillary sunbathing in the
nude. I think it is preparation for such possibilities that drives
the sales for computerized cameras.
> So, instead of taking every opportunity to lambaste someone who had the nerve to buy an AF camera,
>why not share some of your supposed camera wisdom.
I don't have any wisdom I didn't learn from somebody else. But the
most important thing any photographer ever said - or ever will say -
is a quote from the great Edward Weston: "It is not the mundane
objects of life that attract viewer interest in a picture, it is the
way they are lighted."
Now, the question is "what are the mundane objects of life?" Well,
the mundane objects of life are everything you point your camera at -
or ever will. Unless you just happen to be in the right place at the
right time, and catch that landing of the UFO on the White House lawn.
But if the odds don't favor your being so lucky, your only hope of
escaping the "mundane snapshot" syndrome is to learn lighting
technique.
>You might be amazed, but
>you can do most everything you can do with a manual camera using an AF
>camera (short of a few full-auto things that are more P&Ss than real
>cameras, and I don't mean the F100).
If the F100 can't arrange lights and rearrange the subject matter in a
scene, I can't imagine what it could do for me that one of my 15 or 30
year old cameras can't do. When it comes to taking pictures, I find
that learning lighting and compositional techniques are far more
rewarding than learning to manipulate a computer. If the computer
could do anything useful, it would make the photographer redundant and
superfluous.
>So come on, prove you aren't just some
>old fogie who just wants to be a pain in the ass and say things like "You
>kids don't know what it means to be a photographer, I had to walk twenty
>miles in the snow to take a picture, and the camera didn't even flip the
>mirror back up." Your full-manual blatheries become tiring after awhile,
>and they still don't solve any problems.
Again, it depends on what one perceives their problem to be. I'm not
quite the psychological wreck who would derive pleasure from making
himself an object of scorn. I am simply an old geezer who can look
back on his own career of chasing after the latest high-tech camera
goodies - and report on where it has taken me.
When I was a young kid, there was nobody to guide my thinking except
magazine advertisements. I kind of wish there had been someone to
grab me by the shoulders and give me a good shaking - or a slap across
the face, as I continued to drain my bank account in pursuit of the
perfect mundane snapshot.
In a few years, Nikon will introduce the F200 - and all the faults and
shortcomings of the F100 will be revealed. Then a few years later,
the F300 will come out and all the faults and shortcomings of the F200
will be revealed.
All I can say is that education costs money. And a lot of people go
broke before they ever learn anything. I did.
On the other hand, life is to be enjoyed. And if one derives pleasure
from working the bells and whistles on the latest camera, I don't have
any problems with that. But it is good to have an understanding of
what it is you're doing, and not pretend that what you are doing is
something else. Elbow-bending in a local bar is not really a
cardio-vascular workout, regardless of how attractive that thought may
be - or how diligently Nikon and Canon may advertise the truth of it.
Gene Windell
Dan
_____________________________
Dan
(remove xspamx to send email replies)
"Gene Windell" <ewin...@psci.net> wrote in message
news:38c04ff4...@news.psci.net...
[many useful, honest, hard-earned insights]
Tom
>I've never suggested complete reliance on automation - but going the
>complete opposite way isn't really the answer.
I couldn't agree more.
To me, the most sensible approach is to stuff your "bag of tricks"
with every technique you can possible put in it (ie, everything
including how to handle cameras ranging from purely manual to fully
automatic) and then know when to pull out the most appropriate
technique for each situation without a moment's hesitation.
Recall that I said that I indeed have a do-everything F100, and I just
turn off whatever automatic features might be getting in the way in a
particular situation.
However, the problem that I see with too much automation is that it
oddly biases the early learning process for many novices.
Few beginners will turn off the automation periodically to learn other
techniques, and so, automation becomes a crutch that many are
psychlogically unable to do without. If beginners have to do at least
a short stint with some old manual clunker, they will learn the
appropriate manual techniques, and even more importantly, they will
learn in what situations manual focus, manual exposure, setting
lighting ratios manually is actually better. The best of these
students will eventually be able to make the transition between manual
and automated modes without even thinking about it during a shoot, and
become the most versatile photographers.
Basically, I feel that for those people that simply aspire to
"advanced snapshots" (no put-down intended whatsoever), full
automation is wonderful. They can get really satisfying shots of
their families, at a level of quality unimaginable a few years ago.
Even for people who aspire to go further in photography, I have
absolutely no problem with letting them start out for a couple of
years with a fully automatic camera. It will let them concentrate on
composition and people skills and develop these skills.
However for this latter set of people (ie, those with a desire to go
further), excessive reliance on automation is fostered simply by its
everpresent availability, and, after a point, playing with the
automatic features of their cameras serves merely to compete for the
time of the student that would be better spent learning some basic
"manual" techniques.
>I agree that your assistant
>should have known better (at the very least, she should have been able to
>add some negative flash compensation to adjust the ratio of flash to ambient
>without going to slow-sync - maybe she would have understood that?), but
>that isn't proof that use of automation is wrong.
Again, I couldn't agree more (in principle).
I myself will often will dial in oddball combinations such as negative
exposure compensation on top of positive flash compensation to get
various effects that I desire.
You simply have to have such techniques in your "bag of tricks" ...no
argument...
However, I must tell you that after 30 years of trying to explain /
teach various techniques to other photographers, I can tell you with
the utmost certainty that if a given person doesn't know the why's and
how's of "dragging the shutter" manually, they certainly would have no
clue about doing it automatically, so I wasn't about to try to explain
it to my assistant on this shoot in real time.
If you want to see how hard it is to explain the relationship between
exposure and flash compensation, just do a search on that topic in the
NG using deja.com, and you will see hundreds of postings on the topic
in the last couple of years as people try to figure out and teach each
other how to use these particular automated techniques on their
cameras.
>Merely that if you're
>going to be doing a job like that, you should know what you're doing (and
>that your assistants should as well). It should have been easy to do (and
>I've done it) even without turning off the automation. Also, you did ask
>her if she had done this work before and knew what to do in a situation
>where hand holding the camera at slow-sync speeds would have been a problem,
>right? Don't mean to be harsh, but you can't just blame automation - your
>assistant's lack of experience had some part in the matter.
Again, I have little disagreement (in principle) with what you say,
however, the world around you often moves in unpredictable ways.
When I recruited her for the shoot, I was very impressed with her
compositional eye, and indeed did know that technically she wasn't as
knowledgable / versatile as I might like. However, since the budget
for a 2nd photographer was limited, and the ceremony was supposed to
take place a couple of hours earlier, well before sundown (ie with
plenty of natural fill available due to the huge picture windows), I
thought there would be no problem. Well, it turned out that the
ceremony got delayed, the sun went down, and we ran full tilt into her
technical limits.
Of course I can have no argument with your statement that her lack of
experience had a huge part in the matter.
However, my thesis is that one factor which contributed to her (and
many other people's) lack of experience / versatility is the overuse
of automation by novice photographers who aspire to become versatile.
They somehow can't shake the image that the ultimate level of
achievement for a photographer is to take pictures at 5 fps, they way
they see photojournalists and fashion photographers represented in the
movies and in seeking this, they seriously neglect other parts of
their photographic education / experience.
Bottom line - if you want to be commercially viable, you gotta be
versatile, and you don't get this from learning exclusively on a fully
automatic camera.
Just my $0.02,
Tom
Washington, DC
PS - Just so you don't get the wrong dea, if I'm shooting a fast
moving situation, even I (as perhaps another represntative of the
world of old curmudgeons) go "full auto" with my f100 and AFS lenses
- grin.
Tom
wrote:
>My actual advice is that impressive image quality results from the
>application of knowledge, skill and effort on the part of the
>photographer. While camera automation will inarguably speed up the
>process of picture taking, there are extremely few circumstances where
>the amount of time needed to focus the image or set the exposure is a
>determining factor. More often, camera automation (like zoom lenses)
>are chosen purely for the convenience offered instead of a requirement
>by the image.
>
...big-time snip...
>
>On the other hand, life is to be enjoyed. And if one derives pleasure
>from working the bells and whistles on the latest camera, I don't have
>any problems with that. But it is good to have an understanding of
>what it is you're doing, and not pretend that what you are doing is
>something else. Elbow-bending in a local bar is not really a
>cardio-vascular workout, regardless of how attractive that thought may
>be - or how diligently Nikon and Canon may advertise the truth of it.
>
>Gene Windell
Gene -
I thought that your posting was one of the most thoughtful discussions
of this topic (filled with important relevant personal experience,
that I have ever seen). Bravo!! I can add little.
You might be interested glancing in my posting on this thread just a
few minutes ago, which is from the perspective of having both
automated and manual techniques in the "bag of tricks" of any pro
photographer.
Sincerely,
Tom
Washington, DC
Mac Breck
news:AUSv4.3791$z92....@news.swbell.net...
>
> Mac Breck wrote in message ...
> >news:38BF6CBE...@swipnet.se...
> >> One problem is also that doing the things you can do well with
> >> familiar equipment is usually far faster than relearnning and doing it
> >after
> >> that. A well known trap for professionals in any profession.
> >
> >The problem is now that I've bought and paid for my manual focus
equipment,
> >and am very familiar with it, I'm hesitant to sink $1300 into an F100,
> >probably $2000 into a 17-35 AF-S, and ~$1500 each into a 28-70 AF-S and a
> >80-200 AF-S, given the problems with the F100, and AF Nikkor Durability
> >issues aired in this newsgroup. It's fear of the unknown, and possibly
> >getting a lemon, I guess.
> >
> usually deserve.
>
> Most of the time, I read about some piece of gear that I own and I am
> horrified that I purchased such crap. The I remember that not only have I
> never had the problem but the gear works very well for me in the situation
> described.
>
> I guess there are three factors at work. 1) Few read the manuals carefully
> (which are often written poorly)
Talking about the recent Nikon manuals, I coudn't agree more. e.g. Coolpix
950 manual, LS-2000 manual,....
I particularly liked this passage in the LS-2000 manual:
Section 3.2 Software Installation, Sentence #2: "For reasons of space,
detailed installation instructions are not provided in this user's guide."
This *is* the Setup chapter of the manual! It's what you're supposed to
read!
I noticed this sentence after the instructions in Step 3 didn't work. No
matter what I tried, I couldn't install the software when Windows 95 sensed
the Unknown Device window on startup ("Unknown Device - Select which driver
you want to install for your new hardware."). I had Cancel, and install the
software after fully going into Windows 95 (odd for a "driver"). Also, the
Nikon Scan CD-ROM contains the drivers, *not* the CD-ROM labeled "SCSI Host
Adapter Software for Super Coolscan 2000, Coolscan III, LS-4500" like I
would have suspected to contain the drivers. The Nikon Scan disk just
looked like a program disk to install after the drivers were installed.
Mac
Dan
for the thoughtful insights.
_____________________________
Dan
(remove xspamx to send email replies)
"Tom" <spam-...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:38c0f1a4...@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
Al Denelsbeck
Gene Windell wrote in message <38c04ff4...@news.psci.net>...
>On Fri, 3 Mar 2000 01:22:09 -0500, "Spock's Brain"
><some...@overtherainbow.com> wrote:
>
>>Gene man, do you have any actual advice - or are you just going to keep
>>taking potshots at people who don't feel the need to eschew modern
>>technology?
>
>My actual advice is that impressive image quality results from the
>application of knowledge, skill and effort on the part of the
>photographer.
<snip of continuing, excellent explanation of viewpoint>
Gene you were admittedly one post away from my killfile until this one.
The reason for this was, every preceeding post I had read from you (perhaps
not everything that you posted, either) had consisted of forceful negative
statements which did little to either explain your own opinion nor help the
situation of the original poster.
Just a reminder to you, as well as everyone else reading, that a lot of
people on this NG are here to better their knowledge. They may eagerly be
awaiting responses to some pressing question, and all too frequently, an
inordinate amount of people spend an inordinate amount of time ranting or
being demeaning. The old adage of 'If you're not part of the solution,
you're part of the problem' perhaps needs to be applied more often to
newsgroups.
Your previous explanation made a lot of sense, and gave weight to your
opinions. Without it, brief posts become wide open for interpretations such
as "bitter old curmudgeon", which I readily admit was also my own opinion.
No longer, by the way. I'm not saying that you want to put all the effort
into every post that you did the last, but that a little more background
might prove fruitful. Just my $.02.
Now for a different viewpoint, from personal experience. Those of you
that don't like long posts should leave now:
I pursued photography as a hobby since I was ten or twelve. I went
through who knows how many different, inexpensive manual cameras because I
quite simply couldn't afford a decent one. My last camera before present was
a used OM-10, with the manual shutter speed adapter. My photography was
okay, better than average, but not outstanding.
With a tax refund, I splurged and got an Elan IIe and a few lenses. The
addition of an accurate, dependable meter and a few shooting options
improved my photos (or snapshots, if you will) to the point where I got a
whole renewed interest in photography. A marketing seminar also helped. I
began shooting slide film, and throwing out everything that wasn't great,
and spending a lot more time studying technique, reading books and
magazines, and frequenting newsgroups. I learned the limitations of the
camera and preferred films, the accuracy of the metering options, and what
lighting situations needed adjustment.
My point is, this occurred with a dreaded do-all computer camera. It
didn't happen from the camera, but from my own attitudes and efforts. I use
matrix-metering frequently, but from presence on this NG I know exactly what
matrix-metering does, and thus why it won't work in some situations.
Applying this to my own slides on the light table (before they joined the
vast pile in the trash), informed me how to correct the situation next time.
And looking at the full trash can compared to the keepers on the light table
was great motivation...
You admitted yourself that it wasn't necessarily the camera that blew
the gig for you, but the limitations of the auto-settings and your own
inability to change them to suit the situation. To take the hard-ass stance,
you took a job without knowing whether the camera could handle it, and
weren't familiar enough with the camera. This isn't intended as a personal
attack, but just playing devil's advocate to reinforce a point you yourself
made: Know your equipment, and your trade, and their limitations.
I shoot nature and wildlife - lighting adjustment practically isn't an
option. Neither is asking the subject to turn a little to the left, or fly
back and try that pass again, a little lower, now that I have the exposure I
need. Some forms of photography lend themselves to having as much as
possible done immediately, because the optimum image exists for less than a
second. UFO on the White House lawn? Any old shot will do, since no one else
will have it. Osprey snagging a fish from the lake? Better be bang on
perfect, because every stock agency has about fifty of exactly that, and
you're competing against them. And I can't count how many times I've been
set with tripod and exposure values for one thing, and another happens along
for just a moment. Unzip the bag the Sekonic is in and.... gone. It just
won't work.
But you have your opinions, and I have mine. If we both state them
clearly, the serious people can decide what works best for them.
And then all the rest can call each other names...
Thanks. - Al.
TenKman
Gene Windell wrote:
> The same principle applies to camera automation and convenience. It leads the
> photographer to avoid the knowledge, skill and effort that producing
> impressive images requires.
>
>
> I know that not all, and perhaps very few readers of this forum seek
> to become accomplished photographers. But for those few who have that
> ambition, my message is that camera automation will not take you where
> you want to go. The only thing that will get you where you want to go
> is the study and learning of technique, and unrelenting effort.
> Relying on automation as a substitute for learning technique or
> applying effort will take you in exactly the wrong direction.
>
Ok Gene dude, I will start by saying that I know little about cameras and photography. That is why I am
lurking and learning as I aspire to be a better amateur.
I do know a boatload about computers and IS and human interaction as I teach and research their use.
There is a long line of research about whether computers essentially make people dumber because of
reliance or smarter because it shortens the learning curve. After numerous experiements and lots of
research, the best we can say is that computers (automation of cameras if the analogy can be extended)
enable some and are a crutch for others. The others that use computers as a crutch, likely would never
have taken the time to achieve at a given level and those that use it as a tool are more powerful still.
I think that similar principles could apply to photography. The insanely obsessed will learn the
underlying principles and use every tool possible to "up the ante" in terms up photographic quality. I
believe that anyone that limits themselves in any one way, will fall behind. This of course depends on
my belief that computer principles can be extended to camera principles.
Anders Svensson
> This of course depends on
> my belief that computer principles can be extended to camera principles.
One of the points here is that computers and computer systems often are used to model the reality, but allow
far more efficient or complex applications of that model than non-computer (or IS) support will allow. Any
accountant or engineer can testify that.
If the parallell to cameras is to be drawn fully, few accountants or engineers are expected to buy a
computer and start producing legally correct and economically sound bookkeeping or reliable engineering
work, just because they have access to state of the art computer support. It is the the already relatively
good ones that will be far more productive, not the complete beginners. It is also a a supported fact that
expert oriented fast, efficient interfaces look far different from helpful "beginner" interfaces.
This is where I find that many problems possibly can occur when seeing a lot of the questions on the NG. The
manyuals are not supportive (look at the big market for "Nikon F90x for Dummies" type of books to complement
the factory manuals) and unlike computers, this market isn't fed by "friend-to-friend" copying either....
Those who advocate learning basic photographic principles on a manual camera may have a very good point
therefore, as this camera forces the beginner to make their own mistakes (and their own sucess too). Note
that there is no reason that this cannot be achieved on a auto camera as long as the automation is
disengaged but many of the *first time* all auto, AF SLR customers go that route because they, too, want the
"camera that take good pictures". The business has a big part in this problem.
Alan
bandwidth...........
carl valle
you are now an "F" camera user.
glad it works
Alan <ajac...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1Ndw4.6210$VM.4...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
Woodard R. Springstube
attitude is based in years of trying to teach finance and economics to
undergraduates, during the time that computers and calculators have become
much more powerful.
The problem with relying on technology too much is that too many people tend
to let the technology do thier thinking for them. One of the things that I
try to impress on my students is the need to understand the formulas
programmed into their financial calculators and software. Then they know
when to believe the results that the thing spits out at them, and when to
take it with a grain of salt (usually because some key assumption built into
the formula is violated). Of course, they just want to generate numbers and
blindly follow the answers, assumptions be damned! I think that photography
is much the same. If you learn how to use a manual camera, you will become
a better photographer; because, you have to think more about light.
I have been taking pictures since I was 8 years old, (in the late 1950's),
and have used everything from a Nikon N70, to a Brownie Starlet (my first
camera), to an old Pentax H2, with hand-held exposure meter. Now I have
both the N70 and an FM2n. I find that, with the N70, I tend to just
point-and-shoot. The FM2n forces me to think, and, as a result, I tend to
take better pictures with it. And, since I bought the FM2n, and started
using it, now I am taking better pictures with the N70. I think that this
is because, being forced to think more with manual camera, I have developed
the habit of thinking more with the N70, also.
Happy Shooting,
Woodard Springstube
TenKman <dol...@cc.usu.edu> wrote in message
news:38C12964...@cc.usu.edu...
>
>
> I think that similar principles could apply to photography. The insanely
obsessed will learn the
> underlying principles and use every tool possible to "up the ante" in
terms up photographic quality. I
> believe that anyone that limits themselves in any one way, will fall
behind. This of course depends on
Gene Windell
wrote:
>However, the problem that I see with too much automation is that it
>oddly biases the early learning process for many novices.
Tom,
I suppose not unlike yourself, I have many different cameras. Some of
them I use only occasionally for a specialized purpose. I've found
that the more automated features a camera has, the more difficult it
is for me to remember how to work the darned thing if a few weeks have
passed since I last used it.
Gene Windell
Gene Windell
wrote:
Hi Tom,
>You might be interested glancing in my posting on this thread just a
>few minutes ago, which is from the perspective of having both
>automated and manual techniques in the "bag of tricks" of any pro
>photographer.
Yes, I already read your post and wanted to compliment you on your
writing skills as well as your insights. You should post more,
whether anyone wants to hear what you have to say or not. You're
probably familiar with the old quotation: "all that is necessary for
evil to prevail is that good men remain silent."
If I had even the slightest suspicion that computerization could make
my work even one whit better or even just less stressful, I would jump
on it with both feet in a New York minute. However, my experience has
been just the opposite. I'm not so subborn that I require a lot of
convincing. But I'm looking for facts applied to technique and not
the dogma of advertising hype.
Probably not unlike yourself, I have a collection of books on the
topic of wedding photography. Just last week I got the new, revised
edition of a book by Steve Sint titled "Wedding photography - Art,
Business and Style." From reading such books, I always learn at least
one useful technique for adding to my "bag of tricks."
Anyway, I was quite surprised that in this day and age this author is
advocating use of fully manual flash for wedding photography. Even I
use a Sunpak 120J in auto mode for most of my indoor candid work.
Steve Sint uses the Lumedyne system for an on-camera flash, and
adjusts the exposure with his feet. You gotta' admire a guy like
that.
For my "quick and dirty" outdoor portraiture of singles and couples, I
use the Sunpak 120J with a Lumiquest Softbox II diffuser mounted
on-camera with a bracket for the fill light. For the main light, I
use a Sunpak Auto 611 handle-mount flash with a Chimera 12X16 softbox
attached. As you well know, there is seldom enough time or battery
power to invest in flash metering every shot. For the main light, I
measure the flash-to-subject distance with a marked string. For the
fill flash, I simply read the distance from the focusing scale on the
lens. However, if there was some way a computerized camera or TTL
flash metering could simplify or speed up this process - I would jump
on it in a heartbeat. I've flirted with the idea of trying a Contax
RTS III or a Leica R8, which have the internal pre-flash meter that
will work with anything. But I'm not convinced that even that would
be of much help. Maintaining the lighting ratio between the fill, the
main, and the ambient back lighting are what makes or breaks the
picture - and internal camera meters just can't help much with that
(so far as I know.)
I would be very happy and appreciative to listen to any ideas you are
willing to share about how camera automation can be used to improve
wedding photography technique.
Gene Windell
Spock's Brain
> However, the problem that I see with too much automation is that it
> oddly biases the early learning process for many novices.
That can be true, however, you can learn at least a little on lighting
technique without leaving auto-mode by learning the use of exposure
compensation (and by noting the exposure information so you can see how each
turns out when you get the slides back - a reason I like the data recording
available in several of the Minolta models). Also, learning how to use the
exposure lock as well as the other metering modes - like spot and
centerweighted - can go a long way to learning how lighting affects the
photo. And that's something your assistant using the N90 should have known.
It isn't necessary to turn off the automation - most decently designed
cameras allow you the ability to adjust the automation to fit most
situations. Often it is more effort to defeat the automation than to simply
add a bit of compensation and retain the advantages of automation.
> Few beginners will turn off the automation periodically to learn other
> techniques, and so, automation becomes a crutch that many are
> psychlogically unable to do without.
It isn't simply a matter of turning it off - but not blindly following the
automation. Many of the cheap cameras at the low end don't offer anything
but auto or manual, and precious little in between. They make exposure
compensation hard to do, some don't even allow manual ISO settings. Most
beginners don't want to have to spend ten weeks getting crappy photos with
manual settings, and since the full auto does better than they do, why
should they change (as they usually start out with the intention of
producing nice photos, not learning everything there is to know about
light). It is disappointing that most cameras are a pain to use in anything
other than full auto. But I'm sure a N90 should have easy to adjust
controls for exposure compensation or flexible program - two ways of using
automation while retaining control of the image.
> If beginners have to do at least
> a short stint with some old manual clunker, they will learn the
> appropriate manual techniques, and even more importantly, they will
> learn in what situations manual focus, manual exposure, setting
> lighting ratios manually is actually better.
A manual only camera isn't the only solution. It seems to be something old
photogs try to inflict on newbies in a way of making them share their pain
(and I say this as someone who started out with a manual camera). If
someone really wants to learn how to get good photos, they're going to do it
with any camera capable of allowing them adjust exposure settings -
regardless of the automation. It is easy to do things manually on a
decently designed camera, no less so than on a fully manual camera. One
shouldn't be forced to into a limited range of equipment simply on this
theory - for instance, fully manual cameras don't even exist for Minolta and
Canon systems that will take AF lenses - so according to this theory if one
wants to go into Minolta or Canon's AF system they must first buy a manual
system that they have no intention of using for more than the time it takes
them to learn, and then replace with AF equipment of their choice - an
expensive solution. And, IMHO, completely unnecessary.
> However for this latter set of people (ie, those with a desire to go
> further), excessive reliance on automation is fostered simply by its
> everpresent availability, and, after a point, playing with the
> automatic features of their cameras serves merely to compete for the
> time of the student that would be better spent learning some basic
> "manual" techniques.
People who actually want to learn, will actually attempt to do so. If they
don't have the self control to do it manually, then they didn't really want
to learn. It isn't automation that hinders them, but their lack of interest
in the concepts of photography beyond composition.
> However, I must tell you that after 30 years of trying to explain /
> teach various techniques to other photographers, I can tell you with
> the utmost certainty that if a given person doesn't know the why's and
> how's of "dragging the shutter" manually, they certainly would have no
> clue about doing it automatically, so I wasn't about to try to explain
> it to my assistant on this shoot in real time.
I understand completely. But I suppose my problem with your post is that
you seemed to place the blame on the automation of the camera, where it
really was on the lack of experience of your assistant. If one had shot in
such a situation before - I've done plenty of museum shooting, where I've
wanted to get both the subject and background illuminated (still learning,
and getting better) - one would have an idea of what is necessary. It isn't
simply a matter of reliance on automation, but also of not having been in a
situation where you have a limited amount of light and you want to balance
fill flash with ambient light. Even with automation, one would learn what
to do with experience. She should have known before hand, and probably
would have if she'd been shooting in that situation before.
> If you want to see how hard it is to explain the relationship between
> exposure and flash compensation, just do a search on that topic in the
> NG using deja.com, and you will see hundreds of postings on the topic
> in the last couple of years as people try to figure out and teach each
> other how to use these particular automated techniques on their
> cameras.
Trust me, I still find myself getting confused on it - a reason I still
review the concepts on a regular basis. But I never found the manual
explanations any easier, and I've heard enough of those as well. It is
simply a difficult subject to learn, which is why so many simply decide not
to learn it.
> Well, it turned out that the
> ceremony got delayed, the sun went down, and we ran full tilt into her
> technical limits.
Okay, I can understand that.
> However, my thesis is that one factor which contributed to her (and
> many other people's) lack of experience / versatility is the overuse
> of automation by novice photographers who aspire to become versatile.
Hopefully a few failures of spectacular nature will temper this - failure is
one of the best teachers. If you find out that your technique doesn't work,
you tend to adjust your technique. Even on an auto camera.
Gary Frost
Spock's Brain wrote:
>
> A manual only camera isn't the only solution. It seems to be something old
> photogs try to inflict on newbies in a way of making them share their pain
> (and I say this as someone who started out with a manual camera). If
> someone really wants to learn how to get good photos, they're going to do it
> with any camera capable of allowing them adjust exposure settings -
> regardless of the automation. It is easy to do things manually on a
> decently designed camera, no less so than on a fully manual camera. One
> shouldn't be forced to into a limited range of equipment simply on this
> theory - for instance, fully manual cameras don't even exist for Minolta and
> Canon systems that will take AF lenses - so according to this theory if one
> wants to go into Minolta or Canon's AF system they must first buy a manual
> system that they have no intention of using for more than the time it takes
> them to learn, and then replace with AF equipment of their choice - an
> expensive solution. And, IMHO, completely unnecessary.
>
So often it is assumed by those who use AF cameras that there is a
"logical" progression from learning the basics on a manual camera then
"graduating" to a computerized automated camera. To me an AF camera is
a specialized tool that I simply have little to no use for.(...more
a facet of modern consumerism than a tool to practice photography...
but that's another topic.) I PREFER a camera with just shutter speed,
aperture and focus control. Add a good meter and I can grab any camera
and know instantly how to use it and if it works. No motors or computer.
There is no punishment, drudgery, or pain, nothing like it.
Ultimately all the dials buttons and controls come down to just those
3 controls. I'm not depriving myself of anything.
I prefer the simplicity.
Gary Frost
Spock's Brain
> More often, camera automation (like zoom lenses)
> are chosen purely for the convenience offered instead of a requirement
> by the image.
I suppose I wouldn't fall in the typical catagory that you've defined for
people who buy cameras with automatic capablity. I chose my last two
cameras because of features secondary to their automatic capablities. In
fact, neither of them have exposure modes beyond P/A/S/M and (on the second)
a PA/PS mode to allow switching to aperture or shutter priority for an
exposure without leaving program mode. And while both have different AF
modes, I was more interested in its usefulness than anything else (and would
be more than satisfied with a single continuous focus mode could be locked
using the AF-lock button). I do take action shots, so yes the continous
motor drive speed was important - because only getting 2 fps max just didn't
cut it. While both cameras have several metering modes, I must admit to not
using more than the standard modes - which has given me great exposures on
slide film. But the most important thing about both cameras is how little
they resemble the typical autocamera, and how much they resemble actual
cameras - despite being more capable than either. In this case, yes, I did
buy it for convenience - the convenience of ease of use.
> The same
> principle applies to camera automation and convenience. It leads the
> photographer to avoid the knowledge, skill and effort that producing
> impressive images requires.
It seems that most people who advocate a return to manual also claim that
the average person doesn't have the strength of will to actually attempt to
learn photography. A fairly negative view, don't you think? If a person
wants to learn, they're going to learn regardless of the camera being used
(unless the camera is incapable). If they're unwilling to put in the effort
on an auto camera, chances are they'd be unwilling to learn - period. One
can do it on an auto camera.
> The only thing that will get you where you want to go
> is the study and learning of technique, and unrelenting effort.
> Relying on automation as a substitute for learning technique or
> applying effort will take you in exactly the wrong direction.
While I agree with this, I don't see this as necessitating giving up a
modern camera. One can learn technique on any camera capable to allowing
you to adjust settings. Automation does not prohibit learning, nor does
effort prohibit the use of automation.
> In my amateur photography days, like everyone else I was quite content
> to get 1 or 2 "keepers" from a roll of film. But looking back, I now
> realize that I wasn't really interested in taking pictures at all.
> Instead, I was only taking pictures to justify owning the equipment.
This, rather than the use of automation, was the source of you problem. If
you had intended to learn photography, that would have shaped your choice of
camera equipment in the beginning. I know that it shaped mine (although a
lack of money prevented me from getting the camera I really wanted), and has
continued to do so. I didn't simply buy the camera capable of the best
automation, but also for the ability changing things away from the computer
suggestion. If you had that attitude at first, rather than the gearhead
attitude, you wouldn't have had a camera incapable of taking a photo in the
situation you describe. It wasn't automation that created the problem, but
that you didn't pick the right camera. Some cameras (in particular the 3xxx
series of Minoltas) are complete crap, and are to be avoided. But for
everyone of those, there has been at least another well designed camera
available.
> What finally cured my
> illness was a life-changing event which stemmed from the utter
> humiliation I was caused by a computerized camera's failure to
> perform.
It wasn't computerization that was at fault, but the camera's poor design.
> I was given an assigment to shoot some publicity photos under what
> turned out to be extreme lighting conditions outdoors at night, and
> the camera would not autofocus. Worse, I had the camera in a "mode"
> that prevented the shutter from operating if the shutter speed fell
> below a certain speed. Fumbling in the dark, I couldn't see the LCD
> panel or figure out which tiny buttons to push to get the camera into
> a "mode" that would allow me to take pictures - however out of focus
> they may have been. I ended up with no pictures at all.
Yuck, what kind of camera did you have? Sounds like my old 5000i - a camera
that I gladly got rid of for fifty bucks even though it was in mint
condition physically (even though it had a few hundred rolls of film through
it). It only beeped when the shutter speed was too low - an irritating
sound and not really conductive to good photography - but it didn't prevent
the shutter from firing. It was hard to use manually, but it was still more
capable than what you describe - and could even focus in the dark.
Thankfully, the people at Minolta apparantly hated using that camera as much
as I did, and eventually came out with the 600si. Here was a camera that
allowed you take pictures regardless of the shutter speeds - without
beeping, with a well featured LCD display in the finder, allowing you to see
shutter speeds and apertures and even a meter index in complete darkness.
It also had the controls set in such a way that you can tell which controls
are which by feel - even when you can't see them. It had large knobs for
drive, exposure and exposure compensation. It was close to perfect, and
then Minolta came out with something even better (but for three times the
cost). The 9 took the concept of the 600si and fixed most of the problems -
and added some glow in the dark indicators to allow almost completely easy
camera operation without light.
> There I was, working the most important
> assignment I'd ever been given, with a computerized camera that
> wouldn't allow me to take a single picture.
Here's the thing. Having the right computerized camera would have saved
you. A well designed camera - and there are plenty of them out there. A
short list would include the Elan II, 600si, 9, F4, F5, and even the F100.
I'm sure there are others, but these are a few that I've looked at and found
to be well designed cameras (regardless of their computer abilities).
> Now, that is just an anecdote and no more significant than any other.
> In hindsight, anyone can say "oh, well - - you should have done this
> or you should have done that." But the point is - I didn't. And what
> got me into that situation to begin with was the false confidence I
> had developed in computerized cameras.
Still, it wasn't computerization in theory that ruined your shoot, it was
the camera you decided to purchase. Any number of other cameras would have
been able to shoot at your assignment in that situation. A 7000i would have
done quite well, capable of shooting in low light with ease, full manual
control and an intuative control set, and incapable of being locked up as
you describe.
> What makes or breaks a picture is the lighting. Second in importance
> behind that is the composition.
A well lit image of something completely uninteresting is useless, while a
badly exposed shot of an interesting subject can still be a decent image -
such as the picture of the Loche Ness monster. So, I wouldn't put primary
importance on lighting. It is the difference between a good image of an
interesting subject and a bad image of an interesting subject - but without
the interesting subject lighting is technique looking for something of worth
to be used on.
> And behind those two things, how long
> it takes you to focus the lens and set the exposure are almost
> irrelevant. Yet, the typical camera enthusiast is interested only in
> how may frames per second he can fire, and how many micro-seconds are
> required to autofocus his camera at the statue of George Washington
> with the pigeon sitting on his head.
Some of it depends on what you intend to photograph. Not everyone is only
interested in subjects that can be shot in such leisure that hand held
meters and manual focus are available. Just because you don't give a damn
about such subjects doesn't reduce their suitablity for photography.
> And once you start putting the thought, time
> and effort into controlling the lighting - whatever benefits there may
> be to a computerized camera go straight out the window.
The ability to take a single bag worth of equipment - perhaps even just a
single lens and a body, not having to use the hand held meter and still get
good results, having a built in spot meter, and being able to adjust and
evaluate light through the finder, all benefits of forms of automation built
into cameras. Doesn't even require computerization, but newer computerized
cameras are more accurate in their shutter speeds and meterings.
> You can't
> control lighting without measuring what you are doing, and that
> requires a hand-held meter.
When they invent an incident meter on an automatically extending thirty foot
pole that would allow me to meter such subjects like animals in a zoo
enclosure or nesting birds at a top of a tree (or that damn bull elk I shot
last year), I'll agree with you. Until then, I'm afraid there are
somethings you can't do without a reflective meter, and since having a hand
held reflective meter would simply duplicate what's in the camera - what's
the advantage?
> When you use a hand-held meter, whatever
> type of metering and exposure automation you have built into the
> camera is quickly recognized as a redundancy if not a nuisance.
If you have a meter built into the camera, whatever hand held meter you're
using is quickly recognized as being a redundancy - and if it is an incident
meter and you're trying to take pictures of a subject that is physically
impossible to meter, definately a nuisance.
> The
> more technically complex a camera may be, the more likely it is to
> fail - according to Murphy's Law, at the worst possible moment.
Actually, I'd be more worried that a manual camera - which relies on springs
and levers to set speeds and operate - would fail more often than one with
fewer moving parts.
> > Just going manual isn't the solution to the world's camera problems.
>
> Well, that depends on what one perceives the world's camera problems
> to be. If a person feels that shooting their little snapshots with a
> Nikon F100 is still too difficult and inconvenient, a newer model will
> come out in a few years which will make everything far more easy. If
> they can't wait that long, they could upgrade right now to an Canon
> ELPH APS camera.
If a person feels that shooting their little snapshots with a F100 is too
difficult - they should upgrade to a disposable camera.
> On the other hand, the photographer may perceive that all of their
> snapshots look about the same and are mundane and boring. If that is
> the case, what they need to do is learn lighting technique. Once you
> start applying sophisticated lighting techniques your pictures are no
> longer boring. But neither are you getting any usefullness out of all
> the whizz-bang computerized features of your camera.
Really? Funny, but I didn't know the "whizz-bang" features in a camera were
limited to controlling lighting. I know there are other features in my
camera, such as exposure tracking, and high speed AF, as well as the
compatibility with other accessories like battery packs and vertical grips
and data backs, not to mention the better construction. I usually have my
camera in semi-auto or manual mode, which according to you would mean that
I'm not getting the full $1500 out of my camera, but then I'm occassionally
in bad weather or in situations where my other cameras wouldn't have been
capable of decent AF, and I have found the exposure tracking to be much more
useful than trying to do it manually. So, I'd say I'm getting plenty of use
out of my camera.
> Some types of photography lend themselves to shooting snapshots. You
> know what they are. They are the kinds of pictures where all of the
> viewer interest is derived from the subject matter alone - such as a
> UFO landing on the White House lawn, or Hillary sunbathing in the
> nude. I think it is preparation for such possibilities that drives
> the sales for computerized cameras.
While that's well and good, there are forms of photography that require both
the quickness of automation and the knowledge of lighting technique. As
much as you seem to take offense to wildlife photography, noting that most
photographers make their money taking pictures of people, wildlife
photography quite often requires speed and technique, and having it will get
more good pictures than just technique alone.
> > So, instead of taking every opportunity to lambaste someone who had the
nerve to buy an AF camera,
> >why not share some of your supposed camera wisdom.
>
> I don't have any wisdom I didn't learn from somebody else.
And that prevents you from answering the question rather than skewering the
questioner?
> >You might be amazed, but
> >you can do most everything you can do with a manual camera using an AF
> >camera (short of a few full-auto things that are more P&Ss than real
> >cameras, and I don't mean the F100).
>
> If the F100 can't arrange lights and rearrange the subject matter in a
> scene, I can't imagine what it could do for me that one of my 15 or 30
> year old cameras can't do.
But your assertion to this point has been that automatic cameras are
incapable of being as useful as those 15 or 30 year old cameras. Also,
while you may not have a use for AF or for TTL metering, not everyone is in
the same situation. Why the usefulness of the F100 should only be
determined on your requirements, I don't know.
> When it comes to taking pictures, I find
> that learning lighting and compositional techniques are far more
> rewarding than learning to manipulate a computer.
I sort of wonder, what are the similarities between operating a F100 and a
computer. For the life of me, I can't find the ALT key on an F100, nor can
I find any sort of keyboard. Also missing is a mouse and floppy disc drive.
However, I find such things as other cameras have, like a metering index,
and PC sync socket, and controls for adjusting shutter speeds and
apertures - much like a real camera. I find that I can't operate one like I
would a computer, I can't access C drive, or connect to the internet and
download my email, or play Quake. So, I find a camera like an F100 to be
completely different from a computer in the sense that you seem to be
insinuating. Also, you'd probably be horrified to learn that most cameras
that have any sort of metering capablity have primative computers - in order
to evaluate the light hitting a sensor and translating that to something
like a match needle meter index.
> If the computer
> could do anything useful, it would make the photographer redundant and
> superfluous.
I know you're on an anti-computer bent, but if you were really going to be
self-reliant, you'd get rid of the hand held meter and evaluate light by
sight alone. After all, you're relying on the meter's ability to tell you
what the value of the light reaching it is, obviously a crutch. Also, you'd
only use a ground glass screen in your finder, as split screens can be off
(I've seen this in more than one camera) and reliance on them is also a
crutch. Anything more advanced than a black box with a hole in one end and
a piece of photographic paper on the other end are forms of automating the
photographic process, you've simply drawn the line a little further up the
scale - but you're the beneficary of automation just like the rest of us,
just not as much.
> >Your full-manual blatheries become tiring after awhile,
> >and they still don't solve any problems.
>
> Again, it depends on what one perceives their problem to be.
In the case of the actual thread, the problem was that the original poster's
F100 was malfunctioning. And so, you haven't solved any problems. Even Fs
malfunction every now and then, so advocating one of those isn't the
solution.
Gene Windell
<denel...@ipassonspam.net> wrote:
> Gene you were admittedly one post away from my killfile until this one.
>The reason for this was, every preceeding post I had read from you (perhaps
>not everything that you posted, either) had consisted of forceful negative
>statements which did little to either explain your own opinion nor help the
>situation of the original poster.
Hi Al,
I appreciate your sentiments. I've been posting in this forum for a
long time, I guess a couple of years. Those who've followed my
postings for a long time know the context from which they originate.
But I can see how one who is not familiar with the context would find
my opinions irrelevant if not objectionable. I think it is best if
personalities not become the topic of conversation, and I suppose each
of us has a responsibility for insuring that doesn't happen.
If one is expressing opinion, I feel it should be expressed forcefully
or not at all. I know there are always at least 2 sides to every
argument, and I usually know the other arguments which oppose my own.
There is an old saying that: "truth emerges from a caldron of fire."
I interpret that to mean controversy. Thus, I think people learn more
from argument and debate than from simply congratulating each other.
I occasionally learn something myself from participating in these
discussions - but I have to fight very hard to get what I learn out of
other people.
> With a tax refund, I splurged and got an Elan IIe and a few lenses. The
>addition of an accurate, dependable meter and a few shooting options
>improved my photos (or snapshots, if you will) to the point where I got a
>whole renewed interest in photography. A marketing seminar also helped. I
>began shooting slide film, and throwing out everything that wasn't great,
>and spending a lot more time studying technique, reading books and
>magazines, and frequenting newsgroups. I learned the limitations of the
>camera and preferred films, the accuracy of the metering options, and what
>lighting situations needed adjustment.
>
> My point is, this occurred with a dreaded do-all computer camera. It
>didn't happen from the camera, but from my own attitudes and efforts.
I know how getting a new camera can reinvigorate one's interest in
photography. But it isn't necessarily a computerized camera that
works this magic. Some guys pull it off by spending $250 on a Yashica
Mat 124G. But of course, that wouldn't do much for wildlife
photography.
Each photographer has his own interests, and each sub-specialty of
photography has its own tools and techniques that don't necessarily
apply anywhere else. I think that is the cause of many of the
controversies that arise. "Dog photography" can involve anything from
shooting wild dogs on the African savannahs to shooting portraits of
poodles at the local grooming shop. And the tools and techniques best
suited for each type of "dog photography" are completely different.
This is why it sort of drives me crazy when a newbie asks "what kind
of camera should I buy?" And then someone responds "well, I enjoy my
Magicflex 2000 and I'm sure you would too." As Jesus said, "when the
blind leads the blind, they both fall into the ditch."
> I use
>matrix-metering frequently, but from presence on this NG I know exactly what
>matrix-metering does, and thus why it won't work in some situations.
>Applying this to my own slides on the light table (before they joined the
>vast pile in the trash), informed me how to correct the situation next time.
>And looking at the full trash can compared to the keepers on the light table
>was great motivation...
Another of my famous old sayings: "the only difference between a good
photographer and a bad photographer is that the good photographer
doesn't show anyone his lousy pictures."
A flawed picture should be treated as a learning experience toward the
perfection of a technique.. If the photographer can't do that, he is
only spinning his wheels. Unfortunately, beginners starting out with
computerized cameras can learn very little from their flawed pictures.
>You admitted yourself that it wasn't necessarily the camera that blew
>the gig for you, but the limitations of the auto-settings and your own
>inability to change them to suit the situation. To take the hard-ass stance,
>you took a job without knowing whether the camera could handle it, and
>weren't familiar enough with the camera.
You are inarguably correct. Blaming the camera would be like blaming
the gun after one has shot himself in the foot. But in placing the
blame on myself where it belonged, I was forced to evaluate how my own
attitudes about equipment could evolve to the point that such a
disaster was the final outcome. My conclusion was that I had formed
an attitude that camera automation would free me from thinking and
worry. It was the lack of thinking and worry that lead to my
disaster. My solution was to stop relying on automation to do things
for me that I can do as well or better on my own. And the things that
camera automation can do better than I can do myself - I'm still
waiting to discover.
> I shoot nature and wildlife - lighting adjustment practically isn't an
>option. Neither is asking the subject to turn a little to the left, or fly
>back and try that pass again, a little lower, now that I have the exposure I
>need. Some forms of photography lend themselves to having as much as
>possible done immediately, because the optimum image exists for less than a
>second. UFO on the White House lawn? Any old shot will do, since no one else
>will have it. Osprey snagging a fish from the lake? Better be bang on
>perfect, because every stock agency has about fifty of exactly that, and
>you're competing against them. And I can't count how many times I've been
>set with tripod and exposure values for one thing, and another happens along
>for just a moment. Unzip the bag the Sekonic is in and.... gone. It just
>won't work.
I understand that completely. Personally I have nothing but the
greatest respect for "serious" and professional wildlife shooters. I
have done enough of it to know that I don't have enough patience or
stamina to enjoy it or get the best results. And I suspect that if I
was forced to do it professionally, I would be using computerized
cameras. But for shooting caged animals at the zoo and tame ducks on
the local pond, which is what many "wildlife photographers" are
working with - I don't think a computerized camera is either necessary
or beneficial.
Best wishes,
Gene Windell
Gene Windell
<some...@overtherainbow.com> wrote:
>That can be true, however, you can learn at least a little on lighting
>technique without leaving auto-mode by learning the use of exposure
>compensation (and by noting the exposure information so you can see how each
>turns out when you get the slides back - a reason I like the data recording
>available in several of the Minolta models).
Lighting technique and determining proper exposure are not the same
thing. Lighting technique concerns how the highlights and shadows in
a scene relate to each other, and how they both relate to the response
curve of the film. Determining exposure concerns nothing except
producing a printable negative.
While fooling around with the controls on a camera may or may not
result in a printable negative, this teaches nothing about lighting
technique.
>> Few beginners will turn off the automation periodically to learn other
>> techniques, and so, automation becomes a crutch that many are
>> psychlogically unable to do without.
>
>It isn't simply a matter of turning it off - but not blindly following the
>automation. Many of the cheap cameras at the low end don't offer anything
>but auto or manual, and precious little in between. They make exposure
>compensation hard to do, some don't even allow manual ISO settings.
So what's the solution - advise all beginners to start out with a
Nikon F100? If the low priced computerized cameras are not good
enough for a beginner, then who are they good enough for?
> Most beginners don't want to have to spend ten weeks getting crappy photos with
>manual settings, and since the full auto does better than they do, why
>should they change (as they usually start out with the intention of
>producing nice photos, not learning everything there is to know about
>light).
Why should 10 weeks of using a manual metering camera result in crappy
photos? The owner's manual that comes with any manual metering camera
has a section on taking meter readings and making exposure adjustments
that can be read and understood in about 5 minutes. With a
computerized camera, the section on metering and exposure could take
months to comprehend.
My first new 35mm SLR was a Yashica TL Super, which had match-needle
metering at stopped-down aperture. That means you had to engage what
is now termed "DOF preview" to simply take a meter reading. And I'll
admit this was something of a pain in the butt. But it didn't take me
10 weeks to learn how to do it. It took 5 minutes. And with my first
roll of film, every frame was perfectly exposed.
However, back in those days I was even dumber than I am now. Had I
taken another 5 minutes to read and learn the "Sunny 16" rule that was
printed on the inside of every film box, I would have known that I
could have completely dispensed with about 90% of my outdoor meter
readings. It doesn't take 10 weeks to learn everything there is to
know about manual exposure - it takes 10 minutes. But if you try
learning it with a computerized camera, it may take forever.
> It is disappointing that most cameras are a pain to use in anything
>other than full auto.
Perhaps it is a conspiracy intended to discourage beginners from
learning the fundamentals.
>> If beginners have to do at least
>> a short stint with some old manual clunker, they will learn the
>> appropriate manual techniques, and even more importantly, they will
>> learn in what situations manual focus, manual exposure, setting
>> lighting ratios manually is actually better.
>
>A manual only camera isn't the only solution. It seems to be something old
>photogs try to inflict on newbies in a way of making them share their pain
>(and I say this as someone who started out with a manual camera).
Should elementary school children be forced to learn how to do long
division math problems, when pocket calculators make everything so
easy? Couldn't we just as easily say that people will learn to solve
math problems in their head, even though they have a pocket calculator
in their hand? Can a person learn to play the piano if the keyboard
they are given is a computerized synthesizer, which can generate music
with the touch of a button?
> If someone really wants to learn how to get good photos, they're going to do it
>with any camera capable of allowing them adjust exposure settings -
>regardless of the automation.
It seems like you are saying that no matter what obstacles to learning
the fundamentals a computerized camera places in the path of a
beginner, with enough diligence and determination he will overcome
those obstacles. I say, why not just remove those obstacles to begin
with.
> It is easy to do things manually on a
>decently designed camera, no less so than on a fully manual camera.
But what is a decently designed, computerized camera for beginners?
The F100?
It is difficult to learn about depth of field if there is no depth of
field scale engraved on the lens, and no DOF preview feature on the
camera body. It is difficult to learn that a large f/stop number
means a small aperture, and that a small f/stop number means a large
aperture - if as in the case of the Canon EOS there isn't even an
aperture ring on the lens. Computerized cameras change the reality of
camera function into an abstraction, making it more difficult to
comprehend.
The focusing screen in an autofocus camera is not as useful and
effective for manual focusing as a camera that was designed for manual
focusing. The focusing screen in the typical autofocusing camera
lacks the traditional focusing aids of a split-image and microprism
collar, and also is lacking in adequate contrast for manual focusing.
So in those cases where autofocusing is not going to work, the camera
leaves the photographer ill-equipped to manual focus either.
>People who actually want to learn, will actually attempt to do so. If they
>don't have the self control to do it manually, then they didn't really want
>to learn. It isn't automation that hinders them, but their lack of interest
>in the concepts of photography beyond composition.
Learning to master all of the automated modes and redundant controls
on many computerized cameras is a chore in itself. I can see where
many beginners might think that once they've learned to operate the
camera, there is nothing left to learn about photography - when in
fact they have not yet learned anything at all. So if their landscape
shots don't look like Ansel Adams prints, they feel the only solution
is to "upgrade" to a more expensive computerized camera. Or perhaps
blame the film, saying "Kodak film is no good - I'm switching to
Fuji."
Gene Windell
Mac Breck
news:38C20350...@nospamhome.com...
> Ultimately all the dials buttons and controls come down to just those
> 3 controls. I'm not depriving myself of anything.
> I prefer the simplicity.
So do I, about 99% of the time, but "sometimes" a motor drive and AF/AE are
necessary to come back with the shot. Currently, 71% of my bodies and 100%
of my lenses are manual exposure only and manual focus only. The other 29%
of my bodies have AE but no AF, and are used in manual exposure almost
exclusively. However, I intend to add one AF/AE body and a couple of top
quality AF zooms to cover the occasions when AF/AE is necessary to get the
job done.
However, I would NEVER replace my manual exposure/manual focus equipment
with AF/AE equipment.
Mac
ILNikonFan
a defective camera <grin>.
Roger L. Bunting wrote in message ...
Gene Windell
>Ok Gene dude, I will start by saying that I know little about cameras and photography. That is why I am
>lurking and learning as I aspire to be a better amateur.
Well, the term "amateur" is perhaps best defined as someone who does
something for the pleasure of it. I think that to become a better
amateur, one should first try to identify specifically what it is
about photography that gives him pleasure. It may be something
different for everyone.
>I do know a boatload about computers and IS and human interaction as I teach and research their use.
>There is a long line of research about whether computers essentially make people dumber because of
>reliance or smarter because it shortens the learning curve. After numerous experiements and lots of
>research, the best we can say is that computers (automation of cameras if the analogy can be extended)
>enable some and are a crutch for others. The others that use computers as a crutch, likely would never
>have taken the time to achieve at a given level and those that use it as a tool are more powerful still.
>
>I think that similar principles could apply to photography.
A network server and a Nintendo Gameboy are both computers but the
motivations and ambitions that are involved in choosing one over the
other are completely different. Likewise, camera choices are
dependent on what one hopes to accomplish with it.
Many people do not view photography as a competitive event, and simply
want to take a picture of a family member or Mount Rushmore every now
and again. Personally, I think it is a wonderful thing that camera
automation has enabled people to take satisfying snapshots without the
need to learn the technical aspects of photography. This may be the
purest form of photographer, for he cares much for the emotional value
of the image and cares nothing at all for the process by which it was
made.
For others, the act of manipulating the technical process provides
more pleasure than the images it produces. These people may get every
possible type of lens, lens filter and special effects device, may
acquire their own wet darkroom equipment, or spend countless hours
experimenting with Photoshop software.
Still others simply appreciate machinery that is finely engineered and
crafted. These people may become camera collectors and traders, or
repair technicians, and perhaps seldom or ever take any pictures at
all.
For some, and I suspect these are quite rare, photography is a medium
for creative expression. For them the camera, film and light are
simply tools for transferring the image in their own imagination onto
a medium that can be viewed by other people.
Some people take pictures of wildlife because of their fascination
with wild animals. Others take pictures of wildlife simply to justify
ownership of a huge, expensive telephoto lens. Still others take
pictures of wildlife as a way of earning money that avoids working in
a steel mill.
These are just a few examples of why people make the camera choices
they do. A person may buy a computerized camera because they have
poor eyesight or some other handicap, or because they want to produce
satisfying images without learning anything about photography, or
because they enjoy playing around with technical gizmos, or because
they have an actual need for instantaneous focusing and exposure
settings. These are all legitimate reasons for getting a computerized
camera.
In my own case, I use lighting and exposure techniques that require
use of a hand-held light meter. Therefore, all manner of computerized
in-camera metering and exposure modes are worthless to me. I have no
need for instantaneous focusing, and feel that manually focusing the
lens is the only part of camera operation that is really fun. I
wouldn't want to give that up. Because most all of the images I shoot
are already pre-conceived in my head, I already know what f/stop and
shutter speed I'm going to use before I ever pick up the camera.
Consequently, a camera that is bristling with computerized controls I
would never use only confuse the user interface and serve as an
annoying distraction to me. This is an example of why someone may
prefer using a manual camera to a computerized camera.
Fortunately, there are many levels of camera automation so that one
can buy into the level that suits their needs. All autofocusing
cameras are fully computerized, and allow use of manual focusing and
exposure settings with some degree of difficulty - depending on the
model. Manual focusing cameras are available with or without exposure
automation, and with or without an integral power winder.
There is nothing noble or beneficial about manual, in-camera metering.
Manual, in-camera metering will give exactly the same exposure
readings as either aperture or shutter speed priority exposure
automation, but by a more time consuming process. So long as one is
using either Av or Tv exposure automation, the same judgement and
decisions are being applied as when one meters manually. It is only
when the fully programmed exposure mode is used that creative control
is sacrificed and surrendered to the computer. If one insists on
purely manual metering and exposure settings, they will be best served
by using a hand-held incident/spot/flash meter - and using the
in-camera meter as a backup system.
> I believe that anyone that limits themselves in any one way, will fall behind.
I guess that's true. In the hands of a knowledgeable and experienced
photographer, a computerized camera may or may not be an indispensable
tool - depending on the subject matter he specializes in and the
techniques he prefers using.
On the other hand, a computerized camera in the hands of a new
beginner will impose obstacles to learning the fundamentals. And thus
the camera becomes a limiting factor, causing the beginner to fall
behind. But he will fall behind only if his ambition was to learn
advanced techniques to begin with, which should by no means be a
requirement for all. If one is confident their ambitions will never
extend beyond producing mundane shapshots, then there is no reason to
avoid a fully computerized camera.
In the final analysis, the kind of camera a person buys should depend
on his own motivations and ambitions - which are going to be different
for everybody. Having said that may start new trouble. Instead of
asking "what camera should I buy," some newbies may start asking "what
are my motivations and ambitions?"
Gene Windell
Gene Windell
<some...@overtherainbow.com> wrote:
>"Gene Windell" <ewin...@psci.net> wrote in message
>news:38c04ff4...@news.psci.net...
>
>> More often, camera automation (like zoom lenses)
>> are chosen purely for the convenience offered instead of a requirement
>> by the image.
>
>I suppose I wouldn't fall in the typical catagory that you've defined for
>people who buy cameras with automatic capablity. I chose my last two
>cameras because of features secondary to their automatic capablities.
You seem like a smart and sensible guy to me. I hope you would not
take my camera criticizms personally. In an ideal world, surely it
would be possible to comment on a camera's relative merits without
insulting its owner.
In this forum, newbies often say "I know nothing about photography,
and don't care to learn. Therefore, what computerized camera should I
buy." Some helpful soul always responds with "get a Magicflex 2000."
A week later, the newbie comes back to report that he bought the
Magicflex 2000, and is quite pleased with it. At that point, I may
post a comment saying "those cameras are for people who know nothing
about photography, and don't care to learn." Seems this should be
taken as a positive affirmation of the newbie's buying decision, and
also the recommendation offered by the helpful soul. But I guess
people just want to pick on me for trying to be friendly.
>It seems that most people who advocate a return to manual also claim that
>the average person doesn't have the strength of will to actually attempt to
>learn photography. A fairly negative view, don't you think?
I think it is a realistic view. Human behavior, like water, tends to
follow the path of least resistance.
I don't advocate a return to manual, I advocate beginning with manual
and leaving it only to fulfill a need.
> If a person
>wants to learn, they're going to learn regardless of the camera being used
>(unless the camera is incapable).
How can one learn about depth of field if there is no depth of field
scale inscribed on the lens, and no DOF preview feature on the camera
body? How can one learn to do multiple exposure techniques if the
camera body has no multiple exposure switch? How can one learn what a
flash sync shutter speed of 1/250th sec is used for, it the camera can
sync with flash no higher than 1/125th second?
Let's face it. Most entry level computerized cameras are oriented
toward auto-everything mode, with reduced facility for anything else.
>If they're unwilling to put in the effort
>on an auto camera, chances are they'd be unwilling to learn - period. One
>can do it on an auto camera.
Yes, if it is a good enough auto camera. But these are usually
outside the budget limits of most beginners.
I just don't see many imaging requirements which a beginner will face
which require instantaneous focusing or programmed exposure, so why
dish those out to him in the beginning?
>While I agree with this, I don't see this as necessitating giving up a
>modern camera.
There are quite a few cameras that are modern without being fully
automated. The Leica R8 at the top of the heap, and the Pentax ZX-M
near the bottom. Either of these would be good for learning the
fundamentals of photography, and the owner may never outgrow his
initial purchase.
I think it is not so much the auto exposure features, but autofocusing
that changes a camera into a point&shoot gadget and molds the attitude
into complacency.
Best wishes,
Gene Windell
Spock's Brain
> You seem like a smart and sensible guy to me. I hope you would not
> take my camera criticizms personally.
It is hard to see such comments as: "If you wanted to make the point that
computerized camera owners not really so pressed for time, but instead are
either unskilled,
indecisive, or simply lazy - I would accept that as a valid argument." and
think: "hey, I use one of those cameras, and I like using it - he's
insinuating that I'm unskilled or lazy." I must admit that I don't really
care that much about what is bandied about on the internet, but you have to
admit that you seemed to be suggesting that computerized cameras are for the
dense or lazy.
> In an ideal world, surely it
> would be possible to comment on a camera's relative merits without
> insulting its owner.
It actually is, however many of your comments seem to insult the owners of
the cameras. Consider: "I really wonder what you guys think you are
accomplishing by pushing all those buttons and spinning all those dials. If
you want to play a Nintendo Gameboy - why don't you just buy one?" Would
you say that was intended to comment on a camera's merits, or to comment on
the camera's owners?
> At that point, I may
> post a comment saying "those cameras are for people who know nothing
> about photography, and don't care to learn." Seems this should be
> taken as a positive affirmation of the newbie's buying decision, and
> also the recommendation offered by the helpful soul. But I guess
> people just want to pick on me for trying to be friendly.
I don't find the comment particularly friendly or positive. And your
continuous references to Nintendo's as suitable alternatives to AF cameras
seem to be less than friendly.
> I don't advocate a return to manual, I advocate beginning with manual
> and leaving it only to fulfill a need.
And one can do that with an AF camera. Simply turn off the AF, put it in
manual exposure mode, and leave it in single shot drive, and you have a
camera you have to focus manually and expose manually. I don't find
anything particularly important about film winding, and find cocking the
winder a waste of time and motion. While this may not be the same as a
truely manual camera, when you're done figuring out what you're doing you're
left with a camera capable of AF and AE - if you start off with manual and
decide you want or need something more, you have to buy another body. Why
waste money?
> > If a person
> >wants to learn, they're going to learn regardless of the camera being
used
> >(unless the camera is incapable).
>
> How can one learn about depth of field if there is no depth of field
> scale inscribed on the lens, and no DOF preview feature on the camera
> body? How can one learn to do multiple exposure techniques if the
> camera body has no multiple exposure switch? How can one learn what a
> flash sync shutter speed of 1/250th sec is used for, it the camera can
> sync with flash no higher than 1/125th second?
Hence the words "unless the camera is incapable".
> Let's face it. Most entry level computerized cameras are oriented
> toward auto-everything mode, with reduced facility for anything else.
Let's face this, if you're going to pay $300 for a body, what are you going
to get? Suppose it costs the same for the parts for a finder, aperture
mechanism, shutter mechanism, and body for both a $300 AF camera and a $300
MF camera. Then add AF, AE, and autowind to the AF camera, while
maintaining some sort of profit margin. It would seem that there is very
little room there to make a decent camera. I am one of the last people to
ever suggest an entry level AF camera for more than pure P&S. If you're
going to be into photography for the long haul, chances are you're going to
be spending hundreds for lenses and film, and $500 for a decent AF camera
isn't too far out of line.
> >If they're unwilling to put in the effort
> >on an auto camera, chances are they'd be unwilling to learn - period.
One
> >can do it on an auto camera.
>
> Yes, if it is a good enough auto camera. But these are usually
> outside the budget limits of most beginners.
Then buy a used AF camera. One can get a camera like a 7000i for around the
price of a new budget camera. Otherwise, it shouldn't be too far out of
reach to put out $400-500 for a decent camera.
> I think it is not so much the auto exposure features, but autofocusing
> that changes a camera into a point&shoot gadget and molds the attitude
> into complacency.
This from someone who previously posted that lighting was the most important
element of photography? Now, it is AF that is the great Satan? I guess I'm
damned to hell, I find AF fairly useful.
Spock's Brain
> While fooling around with the controls on a camera may or may not
> result in a printable negative, this teaches nothing about lighting
> technique.
Wrong. If you know what your exposure was, and you know how you metered the
scene, and you know what the slide (and for the last few years I've shot
nothing but slides, and don't recommend anything else for getting the shot
to look right - because it costs too much to get decent prints anymore)
looks like, you can learn lighting technique. I know that lighting is more
than getting a decent exposure, and you can manipulate it with a decent
camera - even one with automation.
> So what's the solution - advise all beginners to start out with a
> Nikon F100? If the low priced computerized cameras are not good
> enough for a beginner, then who are they good enough for?
Hey, don't bitch at me, bitch at Nikon. I didn't remove such features as
DOF preview and ISO settings from the N60 - they did. Personally, I think
there are a bunch of cameras at the low end of the list that are sheer crap
(even if they do have a glass prism instead of mirrors), including the N60,
everything from Minolta below the XTsi, and the EOS 3000. I think if you're
going to want to get an AF camera worth the money, you have to be willing to
spend close to $400 - 500 on the body. Sure, it is more expensive than a
manual camera, but I look at it like this, if you just want something
inexpensive you're going to be disappointed.
> Why should 10 weeks of using a manual metering camera result in crappy
> photos?
Well, I suppose if you just go out and take the same bland pictures that
everyone else takes, it wouldn't. But then you could do just as well with a
cheap AF camera. If you're going to try and do the more difficult types of
photography that result in striking photos, you're going to make a few
mistakes. Problem is that most beginners don't like making mistakes, and
get discouraged quickly. But most AF cameras are still capable of creating,
as you put it, a printable negative, without thought. Doesn't mean I think
it is right, but that's how it is.
> The owner's manual that comes with any manual metering camera
> has a section on taking meter readings and making exposure adjustments
> that can be read and understood in about 5 minutes. With a
> computerized camera, the section on metering and exposure could take
> months to comprehend.
Why?
> My first new 35mm SLR was a Yashica TL Super, which had match-needle
> metering at stopped-down aperture. That means you had to engage what
> is now termed "DOF preview" to simply take a meter reading. And I'll
> admit this was something of a pain in the butt. But it didn't take me
> 10 weeks to learn how to do it. It took 5 minutes. And with my first
> roll of film, every frame was perfectly exposed.
Any decent AF camera has a version of this system, an index running either
across the bottom of the finder or along the side showing something like
this: +3..2..1..0..1..2..3-. The 0 represents the metered exposure. In
manual, one only has to adjust the aperture and shutter speeds so the
indicator is above 0. Takes only 5 minutes. Takes even less to simply
leave it in program mode - where you'll get "printable negatives" without
effort.
> But if you try
> learning it with a computerized camera, it may take forever.
Why? Please, I'm dying to find out what is so much harder about learning
metering with a computerized camera. Does the "sunny 16" rule simply not
work with computerized camera? Of course "sunny 16" is pretty much the
manual equivalent to the green mode on Canon cameras.
> >A manual only camera isn't the only solution. It seems to be something
old
> >photogs try to inflict on newbies in a way of making them share their
pain
> >(and I say this as someone who started out with a manual camera).
>
> Should elementary school children be forced to learn how to do long
> division math problems, when pocket calculators make everything so
> easy? Couldn't we just as easily say that people will learn to solve
> math problems in their head, even though they have a pocket calculator
> in their hand? Can a person learn to play the piano if the keyboard
> they are given is a computerized synthesizer, which can generate music
> with the touch of a button?
Eh, what precludes the use of a modern camera to do the same things?
> I say, why not just remove those obstacles to begin
> with.
You define them as obstacles, I define them as simply setting the exposure
mode to manual.
> > It is easy to do things manually on a
> >decently designed camera, no less so than on a fully manual camera.
>
> But what is a decently designed, computerized camera for beginners?
> The F100?
A 600si (for about 1/3rd the price) is a decently designed camera. The N80
looks to be a decent camera, for about the same price. Also, the Elan II is
a fairly good choice. All three have DOF preview, easy to understand
controls, and faster flash sync than an F3.
> It is difficult to learn about depth of field if there is no depth of
> field scale engraved on the lens, and no DOF preview feature on the
> camera body.
Then don't buy lenses or bodies without the feature. It isn't so hard to
do. Fixed focals are (relatively) cheap, and every one that I've seen has
had DOF scales.
> It is difficult to learn that a large f/stop number
> means a small aperture, and that a small f/stop number means a large
> aperture - if as in the case of the Canon EOS there isn't even an
> aperture ring on the lens.
What does the aperture ring alone get you when the camera sets the lens
aperture full open automatically (after all, you were going to suggest
watching the aperture blades open and close as you adjust the aperture -
right?)? Beyond that, what is so hard to learn about "Big number, small
opening. Small number, large opening."?
> Computerized cameras change the reality of
> camera function into an abstraction, making it more difficult to
> comprehend.
Anymore than TTL metering with an automatic aperture on a manual camera?
> The focusing screen in an autofocus camera is not as useful and
> effective for manual focusing as a camera that was designed for manual
> focusing. The focusing screen in the typical autofocusing camera
> lacks the traditional focusing aids of a split-image and microprism
> collar, and also is lacking in adequate contrast for manual focusing.
Since I've used a few cameras whose split-image screens weren't quite lined
up properly, I find them less than useful. I find the screen in my AF
cameras to be more than adequate for manual focusing - and no, I don't use
the focus indicator. But then, Minolta's screens are about the best
available - a good reason why they are add-ons for Hassys.
> So in those cases where autofocusing is not going to work, the camera
> leaves the photographer ill-equipped to manual focus either.
> >People who actually want to learn, will actually attempt to do so. If
they
> >don't have the self control to do it manually, then they didn't really
want
> >to learn. It isn't automation that hinders them, but their lack of
interest
> >in the concepts of photography beyond composition.
>
> Learning to master all of the automated modes and redundant controls
> on many computerized cameras is a chore in itself.
You've got to get some better computerized cameras. What kind of auto modes
and redundant controls are you talking about? All I see on my cameras are
P/S/A/M modes (available on a number of MF cameras), drive control modes
(much like those on power winders and drives for MF cameras), and metering
modes (much like a OM-4Ti or F3 or T90). Not a whole lot of redundancy, and
not that many auto modes. And if you don't want to use the autobracketing
feature, you don't have to turn it on. But when you don't have the time to
bracket manually, being able to take 5 shots with .3 EV adjustments in a
second can come in handy. Why bracket manually when you can simply pick the
EV difference and the number of shots and shoot away? I know it can't be
the compelling reason to buy a $1500 camera, but it can be handy.
> I can see where
> many beginners might think that once they've learned to operate the
> camera, there is nothing left to learn about photography - when in
> fact they have not yet learned anything at all.
Much like those who learn how to operate a manual camera might think the
same thing. After all, you're just learning a camera in either case.
> So if their landscape
> shots don't look like Ansel Adams prints, they feel the only solution
> is to "upgrade" to a more expensive computerized camera. Or perhaps
> blame the film, saying "Kodak film is no good - I'm switching to
> Fuji."
Well, I'll leave the braindead solutions to others. I've never advocated
upgrading one's camera for such stupid reasons, unless one started out with
something like a 300si - which IMHO is a mistake for anyone looking for
something with more than P&S potential. That attitude isn't a result of the
cameras, but of the mentality of some of their users. Not all photographers
who use AF/AE cameras have this mentality, and most who do have the same
mentality when it relates to other parts of their lives (in other words,
they're always upgrading everything in the hope of a better life, not just
their camera). A good number of people only buy a camera every so often,
either when their previous one dies or when they see something that would
honestly be more useful. The F100 is so popular because it combined the
technology of an F5 with a more reasonable price tag, and the AF represented
a serious leap over the N90s. The F100 actually has fewer automatic
features than the N90s, since it doesn't have the extra program modes - so
much for progress.
Jacek Zalewski
(..) Currently, 71% of my bodies and 100%
>of my lenses are manual exposure only and manual focus only. The other 29%
>of my bodies have AE but no AF, and are used in manual exposure almost
>exclusively. (...)
Just curious, How many bodies do you have (at least100???)
_j
Spock's Brain
> "logical" progression from learning the basics on a manual camera then
> "graduating" to a computerized automated camera.
I don't see a need for such a progression. I think people should start out
with the kind of camera that they intend to end up with, at least as far as
their budget will allow. Less expensive in the long run.
> I PREFER a camera with just shutter speed,
> aperture and focus control.
I do as well, and I rarely adjust more than those controls. If that sounds
like a contradiction, I'll explain. I usually keep the camera in Ps/Pa mode
(which allows me to adjust both aperture and shutter speeds while keeping
the camera's light value setting), and my idea of focus control is to decide
which AF sensor will be used. Amazing as it might sound, I'm actually
satisfied with the focusing ability of my camera in almost all situations
(no, I'm not blind, I don't have a glass eye, and I don't get 4x5 prints - I
use either K64 or E100 for almost everything). I've never had a use for
such things as Macro or Portrait modes, and find them a waste of resource
that could be used for more worthwhile things (like a decent exposure
tracking system). Basically, what I want in a computerized camera is a good
AF system and a good AE system. Other things are icing on the cake (the
midroll rewind option on the Maxxum 9 is a good feature, and it is easy to
use - most of the other custom functions are set and forget features).
> There is no punishment, drudgery, or pain, nothing like it.
I certainly wouldn't be into photography if there was pain involved, and I
don't advocate painful cameras.
> I prefer the simplicity.
I think we define simplicity differently.
Mac Breck
"Jacek Zalewski" <jacekza...@connect.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:38c47...@skylite.connect.ab.ca...
Jacek Zalewski
prime number, which suggested that you owned at least 100 bodies. 29% out of
7 bodies would be 2.03. Oh well close enough.:-)
Regards
P.S.
"An integer greater than one is called a prime number if its only positive
divisors are one and itself"
_j
Mac Breck wrote in message ...
Anders Svensson
> "Gene Windell" <ewin...@psci.net> wrote in message
> news:38c21236....@news.psci.net...
>
> > While fooling around with the controls on a camera may or may not
> > result in a printable negative, this teaches nothing about lighting
> > technique.
>
> Wrong. If you know what your exposure was, and you know how you metered the
> scene, and you know what the slide (and for the last few years I've shot
> nothing but slides, and don't recommend anything else for getting the shot
> to look right - because it costs too much to get decent prints anymore)
> looks like, you can learn lighting technique. I know that lighting is more
> than getting a decent exposure, and you can manipulate it with a decent
> camera - even one with automation.
Aren't we confusing lighting the subject with exposing the film correctly ?
Spock's Brain
"Anders Svensson" <Anders.-.Ei...@swipnet.se> wrote in message
news:38C4AE35...@swipnet.se...
> Spock's Brain skrev:
>
> > "Gene Windell" <ewin...@psci.net> wrote in message
> > news:38c21236....@news.psci.net...
> >
> > > While fooling around with the controls on a camera may or may not
> > > result in a printable negative, this teaches nothing about lighting
> > > technique.
> >
> > Wrong. If you know what your exposure was, and you know how you metered
the
> > scene, and you know what the slide (and for the last few years I've shot
> > nothing but slides, and don't recommend anything else for getting the
shot
> > to look right - because it costs too much to get decent prints anymore)
> > looks like, you can learn lighting technique. I know that lighting is
more
> > than getting a decent exposure, and you can manipulate it with a decent
> > camera - even one with automation.
>
?
Only if Gene was suggesting using a flash - otherwise I think we were both
discussing exposure, but trying to draw a line between simply correct
exposure and exposure that results in spectacular pictures.
Gene Windell
<some...@overtherainbow.com> wrote:
>> > > While fooling around with the controls on a camera may or may not
>> > > result in a printable negative, this teaches nothing about lighting
>> > > technique.
>> >
>> > Wrong. If you know what your exposure was, and you know how you metered
>>>the scene, and you know what the slide (and for the last few years I've shot
>> > nothing but slides, and don't recommend anything else for getting the
>>>shot to look right - because it costs too much to get decent prints anymore)
>> > looks like, you can learn lighting technique. I know that lighting is
>>>more than getting a decent exposure, and you can manipulate it with a decent
>> > camera - even one with automation.
>>
>> Aren't we confusing lighting the subject with exposing the film correctly
>?
>
>Only if Gene was suggesting using a flash - otherwise I think we were both
>discussing exposure, but trying to draw a line between simply correct
>exposure and exposure that results in spectacular pictures.
No, I refer to lighting technique as controlling how the light falls
on the subject. That often means adding to or subtracting from the
ambient lighting that is already there. Or it could mean rearranging
the subject matter and the camera angle to take better advantage of
the existing light. All this is what creates the mood or dramatic
quality of a photo, and whether or not you precisely nail the exposure
is a secondary issue. The interplay of light and shadow not only
give the subject texture, depth and dimension - but also focus viewer
attention on what the photographer considers to be the most
interesting part of the composition. Proper exposure doesn't do
anything at all except yield a printable negative. If your lighting
sucks, the resulting picture will still suck - even if it is perfectly
exposed.
However, I agree with you that one can learn more about lighting by
shooting slide film than color negative film. For one thing, your
good lighting effects can't be destroyed by bad printing at the lab.
And for another, the narrow exposure lattitude of slide film forces
the photographer to evaluate the relative importance of the light and
dark areas of the scene before we press the shutter button. If bright
objects do not contribute to the strength of the image, we tend to
recompose and change the perspective to exclude those bright objects
from the image. This is about the opposite approach from the
"point&shoot" mentality, which is encouraged and best facilitated by
computerized cameras.
The difference in brightness between the lightest and darkest areas of
the scene is called the contrast ratio. This can be changed by adding
light to the dark areas, or subtracting light from the bright areas by
screening it out. But doing this accurately requires use of a
hand-held incident/spot/flash meter. And if one cares enough about
lighting to use a hand-held meter, then whatever benefits there may be
in using a computerized camera go out the window.
I believe a photographer has a better chance of improving his picture
quality by investing the same money in a hand-held light meter, rather
than a camera with excess automation.
Gene Windell
Spock's Brain
> The difference in brightness between the lightest and darkest areas of
> the scene is called the contrast ratio. This can be changed by adding
> light to the dark areas, or subtracting light from the bright areas by
> screening it out. But doing this accurately requires use of a
> hand-held incident/spot/flash meter.
Are you absolutely sure that it requires a hand-held meter? You don't think
that you can approach this with a decent TTL spot meter linked to a meter
index in a camera finder? I'm increasingly distressed by your insistance
that good photography can only be done with the equipment you decide is
worthwhile. It is amazing how you suggest that computers are a horrible
crutch, but then suggest the use of hand-held meters, some of which are more
complicated than the cameras you'd have them replace, and you complain about
reliance on AF systems and then talk of using split prism finders - which
can (from personal experience) be misaligned enough to be less reliable than
simple ground glass. Why do you get the be the arbitor of what is or is not
capable of good photography? Just because you bought a crappy AF camera a
decade ago doesn't mean that all computerized cameras are useless.
> And if one cares enough about
> lighting to use a hand-held meter, then whatever benefits there may be
> in using a computerized camera go out the window.
And if one doesn't use a hand-held meter, they obviously don't give a good
goddamn about lighting and or good photography? This is your whole point,
isn't it? That only those people who use hand-held meters and manual focus
cameras have any right to be called photographers, right? Maybe you haven't
spelled it out, but your meaning has been very clear.
> I believe a photographer has a better chance of improving his picture
> quality by investing the same money in a hand-held light meter, rather
> than a camera with excess automation.
Doesn't surprise me one bit. However, I think a photographer has an even
better chance of improving their photography by investing the same money
that they'd spend on a hand-held meter on photography books, classes, and
plenty of film - even if their camera only has a simple centerweighted TTL
metering system they're going to get better pictures than someone who just
started with a hand-held meter.
Spock's Brain
> I understand that completely. Personally I have nothing but the
> greatest respect for "serious" and professional wildlife shooters. I
> have done enough of it to know that I don't have enough patience or
> stamina to enjoy it or get the best results. And I suspect that if I
> was forced to do it professionally, I would be using computerized
> cameras. But for shooting caged animals at the zoo and tame ducks on
> the local pond, which is what many "wildlife photographers" are
> working with - I don't think a computerized camera is either necessary
> or beneficial.
I have no idea what you'd consider to be "serious" wildlife photography, but
I'll give you a little real life account of a situation where a hand-held
meter and a manual focus camera would have gotten me absolute zip. Last
year I was up around Benezette, PA, taking pictures of elk. Coming back
into the town, we saw some people parked along side the road. Slowing down,
we saw that there was a bear coming toward the town, and a bunch of tourists
had decided to take photos. One woman with a little P&S camera had gotten
out of her car and was standing along the road, right in the path of the
bear. We pulled over a few yards ahead of where she had parked, and I
managed to get some pictures of the bear coming toward the road, and of the
woman running back around her car as the bear crossed the road a few feet
away. I had maybe three seconds to get the first shot, and within about ten
seconds the bear was across the street and running through town. Now, I
didn't have time to do more than simply point and shoot - if I needed to
meter that scene manually, it would have been over. If I needed to wind the
film after each frame, I'd have only a shot or two of the scene - and
perhaps not the key shots. And the shots came back perfect - each one was
well focused and exposed, despite large patches of dark areas in the
foreground and some backlighting. I'm quite sure, considering the contrast
ratio in some of those shots, that if I had only centerweighted or spot
metering to deal with, those photos wouldn't have looked right - at least
not without adjustments that I didn't have time to make.
Now you can grouse all you want about the usefulness of manual equipment,
but to deny the usefulness of automation - even for things less than
"serious" or professional - is, IMHO, closed minded and simply wrongheaded.
Regardless of their artistic merit compared to great works of art, my shots
of that scene are quite good for the typical "I was there when it happened"
sort of shot, and I'm sure a damn sight better than the shots that woman got
with her little P&S. I wouldn't trade the ability to get those shots for
your supposed advantages of hand-held meters and manual cameras. Probably
because I can do most of what you talk of with my AF cameras, and so am not
denying myself much of anything.
Dan
> On Tue, 7 Mar 2000 19:21:36 -0500, "Spock's Brain"
> <some...@overtherainbow.com> wrote:
> No, I refer to lighting technique as controlling how the light falls
> on the subject. That often means adding to or subtracting from the
> ambient lighting that is already there. Or it could mean rearranging
> the subject matter and the camera angle to take better advantage of
It can also mean taking advantage of timing and/or location. There is
something magical, for instance, about the lighting at dusk...it's my
favorite time of day, and my favorite time to shoot.
And anyone who has been to New Mexico knows there is something strikingly
_different_ about the light there than anywhere else in the states. I don't
know what it is, but it's wonderful.
_____________________________
Dan
(remove xspamx to send email replies)
Tom
<some...@overtherainbow.com> wrote:
>"Gene Windell" <ewin...@psci.net> wrote in message
>> I understand that completely. Personally I have nothing but the
>> greatest respect for "serious" and professional wildlife shooters. I
>> have done enough of it to know that I don't have enough patience or
>> stamina to enjoy it or get the best results. And I suspect that if I
>> was forced to do it professionally, I would be using computerized
>> cameras. But for shooting caged animals at the zoo and tame ducks on
>> the local pond, which is what many "wildlife photographers" are
>> working with - I don't think a computerized camera is either necessary
>> or beneficial.
>
>I'll give you a little real life account of a situation where a hand-held
>meter and a manual focus camera would have gotten me absolute zip. Last
>year I was up around Benezette, PA, taking pictures of elk. Coming back
>seconds the bear was across the street and running through town. Now, I
>didn't have time to do more than simply point and shoot - if I needed to
>meter that scene manually, it would have been over. If I needed to wind the
>film after each frame, I'd have only a shot or two of the scene - and
>perhaps not the key shots. And the shots came back perfect - each one was
>well focused and exposed, despite large patches of dark areas in the
>foreground and some backlighting. I'm quite sure, considering the contrast
>ratio in some of those shots, that if I had only centerweighted or spot
>metering to deal with, those photos wouldn't have looked right - at least
>not without adjustments that I didn't have time to make.
>
>Now you can grouse all you want about the usefulness of manual equipment,
>but to deny the usefulness of automation - even for things less than
>"serious" or professional - is, IMHO, closed minded and simply wrongheaded.
>I wouldn't trade the ability to get those shots for
>your supposed advantages of hand-held meters and manual cameras. Probably
>because I can do most of what you talk of with my AF cameras, and so am not
>denying myself much of anything.
Geeze, guys - why don't you stop arguing and listen to each other!
The rhetoric is getting deeper than my boots (eg, "hand held exposure
meters are more complicated than in-camera (ie, matrix) meters" - what
utter nonsense - listen to yourselves - I've yet to see a hand held
"matrix" meter, one with fuzzy logic comparisons to stored scenes,
factoring in of distance information to the computation, etc. ).
I don't see how either of you could possibly deny the benefits of
automation in fast-moving situations.
Nor do I see how either of you could deny the benefits of careful
methodocial work (ie, incident metering, manual focus, etc.) in
situations in which control is the name of the game (eg, studio
portraits, product photography, glamor, etc.).
Someone without automation won't get a good picture of the bear - no
question,
Someone without an incident flash meter will not be able to take a
product shot that will successfully compete with pictures taken by
others who have the meter & lights, and can previsualize and control
the situation to the n-th degree.
As I said in my one previous posting in this thread, you need to be
able to invoke either technique (as the situation demands) to be a
well-rounded, versatile photographer.
Assuming you are only "allowed" one camera (ie, in keeping with what
seems to be the probable assumption behind this discussion), this
means you need a camera in which the automation can be defeated AND
you need an incident light / flash meter to take both types of shots.
If you don't have the money to get the appropriate equipment, one of
the two aspects of your photography will not be at the highest level
or commercially competitive. After someone has the necessary
equipment, and masters both sets of techniques, then they will be able
to make a well-informed decision to specialize in either fast-moving
or controlled shooting situations as their personality prefers.
Anyone who argues one side or the other without personally being
competent to do both types of photography is "talking through their
hat" and can not possibly be considered credible.
I certainly don't intend to read every posting in this thread, but
from the sampling I have done, I'm astonished at how long this thread
has gone on given the obvious conclusion almost anyone else would come
to (ie, there's two types of photography and you use different
technques and different equipment for each).
End of story - lets get on to something else.
Tom
Washington, DC
Spock's Brain
> The rhetoric is getting deeper than my boots (eg, "hand held exposure
> meters are more complicated than in-camera (ie, matrix) meters" - what
> utter nonsense - listen to yourselves - I've yet to see a hand held
> "matrix" meter, one with fuzzy logic comparisons to stored scenes,
> factoring in of distance information to the computation, etc. ).
Take a look at a Minolta Color Meter III, and tell me that is a simple to
use meter - that it doesn't have more settings and readings and controls
than the any but the most complex 35mm TTL meters.
> Nor do I see how either of you could deny the benefits of careful
> methodocial work (ie, incident metering, manual focus, etc.) in
> situations in which control is the name of the game (eg, studio
> portraits, product photography, glamor, etc.).
I don't, never have.
> Someone without an incident flash meter will not be able to take a
> product shot that will successfully compete with pictures taken by
> others who have the meter & lights, and can previsualize and control
> the situation to the n-th degree.
And if I actually did that sort of shooting, I'd have a hand held meter and
a Hassy and a full studio light setup. But I don't, and therefore I don't
bother to comment on that kind of shooting - it isn't what I do or know.
But Gene has seen fit to comment on the uses of automation, and in his
opinion he simply sees them as crutches for the lazy.
> Assuming you are only "allowed" one camera (ie, in keeping with what
> seems to be the probable assumption behind this discussion), this
> means you need a camera in which the automation can be defeated AND
> you need an incident light / flash meter to take both types of shots.
That assumes something - that a well rounded photographer needs to take
advertising shots as well as bear shots. Quite an assumption, don't you
think? I'd say a better assumption is that each person is going to decide
before they buy their equipment whether they're going to be a advertising
photographer or a wildlife photographer.
> If you don't have the money to get the appropriate equipment, one of
> the two aspects of your photography will not be at the highest level
> or commercially competitive.
And this isn't that important if you don't intend to take the kind of photos
that require the extra equipment, ie - you never intended to be a studio
photographer in the first place.
> After someone has the necessary
> equipment, and masters both sets of techniques, then they will be able
> to make a well-informed decision to specialize in either fast-moving
> or controlled shooting situations as their personality prefers.
So, in order to have decided that I want to photograph wildlife, I needed to
spend a boatload of money on the equipment necessary to take really good
studio photos? You don't think the decision could be made before buying the
Hassy and Minolta Color Meter III? Hell, that meter alone costs more than
my first two AF cameras.
> Anyone who argues one side or the other without personally being
> competent to do both types of photography is "talking through their
> hat" and can not possibly be considered credible.
Huh? Someone with experience in wildlife photography can't talk about
what's necessary for the type of photography they're doing? Someone who
does wedding photography can't talk about wedding photography? Unless
they've both become experts at both? What an elitist point of view.
PhysicsMan
<some...@overtherainbow.com> wrote:
>
>"Tom" <spam-...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>news:38c66dc...@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
>
>> The rhetoric is getting deeper than my boots (eg, "hand held exposure
>> meters are more complicated than in-camera (ie, matrix) meters" - what
>> utter nonsense - listen to yourselves - I've yet to see a hand held
>> "matrix" meter, one with fuzzy logic comparisons to stored scenes,
>> factoring in of distance information to the computation, etc. ).
>
>Take a look at a Minolta Color Meter III, and tell me that is a simple to
>use meter - that it doesn't have more settings and readings and controls
>than the any but the most complex 35mm TTL meters.
The example you gave is irrelevant - its a different type of meter - a
color meter not an exposure meter. Tom seems to be right in that no
hand held *exposure* meter is more complicated than the modern in-
camera exposure systems which perform many functions, often virtually
simultaneously (ie, setting both ambient and flash levels).
>
>> Nor do I see how either of you could deny the benefits of careful
>> methodocial work (ie, incident metering, manual focus, etc.) in
>> situations in which control is the name of the game (eg, studio
>> portraits, product photography, glamor, etc.).
>
>I don't, never have.
>
>> Someone without an incident flash meter will not be able to take a
>> product shot that will successfully compete with pictures taken by
>> others who have the meter & lights, and can previsualize and control
>> the situation to the n-th degree.
>
>And if I actually did that sort of shooting, I'd have a hand held meter and
>a Hassy and a full studio light setup. But I don't, and therefore I don't
>bother to comment on that kind of shooting - it isn't what I do or know.
>But Gene has seen fit to comment on the uses of automation, and in his
>opinion he simply sees them as crutches for the lazy.
Again, I have to side with "Tom" - He is obviously trying to give an
overview of the situation and not get mired down "he said", "she said"
types of arguments. Without pointing fingers as to who said what, a
lot of people following this thread see clearly that there is a need
for both types of photographers, both types of equipment and both
approaches to technique.
>> Assuming you are only "allowed" one camera (ie, in keeping with what
>> seems to be the probable assumption behind this discussion), this
>> means you need a camera in which the automation can be defeated AND
>> you need an incident light / flash meter to take both types of shots.
>
>That assumes something - that a well rounded photographer needs to take
>advertising shots as well as bear shots. Quite an assumption, don't you
>think? I'd say a better assumption is that each person is going to decide
>before they buy their equipment whether they're going to be a advertising
>photographer or a wildlife photographer.
No, I think he stated his assumption quite clearly: "Assuming you are
only allowed one camera...".
He also stated his conclusion quite clearly: (paraphrasing) "...then
to take both types of shots you need the relevant equipment".
I think most people would believe that it is indeed correct that to be
well rounded you need to shoot many types of subject mater, but this
isn't what he said in this paragraph - its what you said, and it is
probably more than a good assumption, it is almost the very definition
of "well-rounded".
On the other hand, you are probably correct in that before they try
their hand at photography, many people probably have some idea what
type of shooting they prefer. However, the reality of the situation
is that these early "decisions" get radically modified as they find
out that wildlife photography is hard and often involves being
uncomfortable, wedding photography puts you under tremendous pressure,
a studio portrait mill can be boring as hell, kid photography can be
anywhere from nauseating to delightful depending on your temperment
and that day's subject, etc. Thus, I think that most people flop
back and forth for quite a while before they settle down, and the
assumption you made is not all that good.
>> If you don't have the money to get the appropriate equipment, one of
>> the two aspects of your photography will not be at the highest level
>> or commercially competitive.
>
>And this isn't that important if you don't intend to take the kind of photos
>that require the extra equipment, ie - you never intended to be a studio
>photographer in the first place.
Again, you should be looking at the "big picture", much as Tom
suggested. From my point of view, it seems that the thread is
basically a comparison / discussion of the appropriate tools needed
for two types of photography.
Although I don't want to find the exact quote, I don't think that Gene
ever claimed that AF and AE were useless. In fact, I remember
statements he made about their appropriateness in certain situtations.
From the point of view of an outsider, and averaging over all the
previous postings in the thread, it comes across that you are the one
who appears to have the more one-sided point of view, seemingly saying
that AF/AE is pretty much always the way to go.
In an early posting in this thread, Gene described in detail how he
used to be a quick-shooting photographer using full automation,
whereas (excuse me if this is incorrect), you appear never to have
done any studio photography. Thus, on the surface, your credibility
is lower in any argument where comparisons of technique and equipment
across the two types of photography are being made.
>> After someone has the necessary
>> equipment, and masters both sets of techniques, then they will be able
>> to make a well-informed decision to specialize in either fast-moving
>> or controlled shooting situations as their personality prefers.
>
>So, in order to have decided that I want to photograph wildlife, I needed to
>spend a boatload of money on the equipment necessary to take really good
>studio photos? You don't think the decision could be made before buying the
>Hassy and Minolta Color Meter III? Hell, that meter alone costs more than
>my first two AF cameras.
>
>> Anyone who argues one side or the other without personally being
>> competent to do both types of photography is "talking through their
>> hat" and can not possibly be considered credible.
>
>Huh? Someone with experience in wildlife photography can't talk about
>what's necessary for the type of photography they're doing? Someone who
>does wedding photography can't talk about wedding photography? Unless
>they've both become experts at both? What an elitist point of view.
>
I hate to keep defending "Tom", but you are not reading what he said
correctly. All he is saying is that to intelligently compare the
techniques and equipment of wildlife and wedding photography, you
should know both. This is an obvious conclusion, not at all an
elitist statment, He clearly never said that "Someone who does
wedding photography can't talk about wedding photography" or anything
like that. You are misquoting / misunderstanding his statements.
I hate to sound like a dad breaking up a fight between two kids, but I
fully agree with "Tom" and suggest a truce in this thread. Newbies
are learning little new technically from reading the text of a
mini-debating society. Both you ("Spock's Brain") and Gene probably
are equally good at your respective specialties and should learn from
each other.
Sincerely,
Jim
Gregg
Roro75 wrote:
> Recieved a NEW F100 today from KEH.
> Installed NEW batteries, Lens, and turned it on. Lo and Behold the BLINKING ERR
> signal shows up. Damm!--After reading the responses from this thread I gather
> it's back to the Dealer for a replacement.
> I called Nikon and talked to a TECH REP and he said that the ERR sign only
> shows if something is wrong, No film in camera will not cause it. The only way
> I cleared it was to fire the shutter once, then after a few seconds it came
> back.
> PS-I had my N90s for two years NEVER a problem Maybe I shouldnt' of sold it!!
> Stan
Don't freak out. Why don't you load a roll, shoot it and see what happens.
Roro75
Roro75
would I take the chance??--would you??
Replacement is on it way.
Gene Windell
<some...@overtherainbow.com> wrote:
> Why do you get the be the arbitor of what is or is not
>capable of good photography?
I'm the arbitor only for myself, as we all are. Otherwise, I'm only
expressing an opinion. My opinions don't contribute to increasing the
profits for camera manufacturers, so I don't expect them to be
popular.
Gene Windell
Gene Windell
>"Gene Windell" <ewin...@psci.net> wrote in message
>news:38c5bec2...@news.psci.net...
>> No, I refer to lighting technique as controlling how the light falls
>> on the subject. That often means adding to or subtracting from the
>> ambient lighting that is already there. Or it could mean rearranging
>> the subject matter and the camera angle to take better advantage of
>> the existing light. <snip>
>
>It can also mean taking advantage of timing and/or location. There is
>something magical, for instance, about the lighting at dusk...it's my
>favorite time of day, and my favorite time to shoot.
I agree with you. The direction, contrast, brightness and color of
natural sunlight change throughout the day. Timing thse changes is
definately a way to control how the light falls on the subject.
Personally, I think within 1/2 hour of sunrise and 1/2 hour of sundown
is the best time of day to take pictures outdoors.
Gene Windell
Gene Windell
wrote:
Tom,
I don't disagree with anything you've said - except this:
>Someone without automation won't get a good picture of the bear - no
>question,
This implies that no good bear pictures were taken before computerized
cameras were invented.
With a scale-focusing Rollei 35, and the Sunny 16 rule, I would have
had the focus and the exposure set before I got out of the car. I
don't know of anyone throwing away a Rollei 35 lately.
Gene Windell
>
>Someone without an incident flash meter will not be able to take a
>product shot that will successfully compete with pictures taken by
>others who have the meter & lights, and can previsualize and control
>the situation to the n-th degree.
>
>As I said in my one previous posting in this thread, you need to be
>able to invoke either technique (as the situation demands) to be a
>well-rounded, versatile photographer.
>
>Assuming you are only "allowed" one camera (ie, in keeping with what
>seems to be the probable assumption behind this discussion), this
>means you need a camera in which the automation can be defeated AND
>you need an incident light / flash meter to take both types of shots.
>
>
>If you don't have the money to get the appropriate equipment, one of
>the two aspects of your photography will not be at the highest level
>or commercially competitive. After someone has the necessary
>equipment, and masters both sets of techniques, then they will be able
>to make a well-informed decision to specialize in either fast-moving
>or controlled shooting situations as their personality prefers.
>
>Anyone who argues one side or the other without personally being
>competent to do both types of photography is "talking through their
>hat" and can not possibly be considered credible.
>
>
carl valle
to me when i removed the film manually . the way to reset the err is to open
the back with the power on and then close it again. this resets the
transport. or to fire a frame and let the camera figure out theres no film
in it, as you did. I wonder how many of these returned cameras are simply
wiped off and tested and repackaged?
Roro75 <ror...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000308213543...@ng-de1.aol.com...
Spock's Brain
"PhysicsMan" <nos...@verio.net> wrote in message
news:38c6bb26....@news.verio.net...
>Tom seems to be right in that no
> hand held *exposure* meter is more complicated than the modern in-
> camera exposure systems which perform many functions, often virtually
> simultaneously (ie, setting both ambient and flash levels).
Complicated, and complicated to use are two different things, and I'd bet
that for most people using a TTL meter is less complicated than using a hand
held meter.
>Thus, I think that most people flop
> back and forth for quite a while before they settle down, and the
> assumption you made is not all that good.
Then most people have a hell of a lot more money than me, as I certainly
could never afford to be making this decision more than once - at least not
after buying some quality equipment suited for my particular field. A 400mm
lens isn't going to be too helpful in either wedding photography or
portrature - so it was probably good that I decided before buying it that I
wasn't going to be doing weddings or spending a lot of time doing portraits.
> Again, you should be looking at the "big picture", much as Tom
> suggested. From my point of view, it seems that the thread is
> basically a comparison / discussion of the appropriate tools needed
> for two types of photography.
Your point of view is slightly wrong. For most of the discussion has been
on the merits of computerization - as it relates to photography in general.
Both Tom and Gene have suggested that AF/AE are unnecessary and or a
hinderance - but rarely have they qualified the statements with the fact
that neither of them shoot in situations better suited for automation.
Gene, in fact, has suggested that there are very few situations that would
benefit from automation and has repeatedly stated that automation is more
difficult and redundant that manual. I've merely been asserting my opinion
that automation has its place and does not have to be either difficult to
use or come at the expense of creativity.
> Although I don't want to find the exact quote, I don't think that Gene
> ever claimed that AF and AE were useless.
No, repeatedly he has stated that if you do things manually, all the
benefits of computerization go out the window. Close enough, though.
> In fact, I remember
> statements he made about their appropriateness in certain situtations.
Compared to the number of times that he has stated the opposite, it is faint
praise that he ever recognizes that AF even has a purpose.
> From the point of view of an outsider, and averaging over all the
> previous postings in the thread, it comes across that you are the one
> who appears to have the more one-sided point of view, seemingly saying
> that AF/AE is pretty much always the way to go.
What? I've never suggested that one should never use MF, I've never
suggested that one should always rely on AF/AE, I've never claimed that
manual is useless. I've only suggested that AF/AE have their place in
certain types of photography. Go back and re-read the thread, and find one
place where I suggested that one should always use AF in all cases. I've
suggested that it is a valid alternative to MF, and that it can be used -
not the same as saying that it is pretty much always the way to go. I
wouldn't suggest that MF is a mistake, only that in some situations it won't
get as many good shots as AF.
> In an early posting in this thread, Gene described in detail how he
> used to be a quick-shooting photographer using full automation,
> whereas (excuse me if this is incorrect), you appear never to have
> done any studio photography.
Gene described in detail how he failed as a quick-shooting photographer -
and then used that failure as proof that computerization hinders
photography. If he was a successful quick-shooting photographer who simply
decided to stop using AF/AE - then I might place a bit more credibility on
his comments. But he failed, either from a lack of effort or a poorly
designed camera or both, and switched and now has made repeated attempts to
assert that others who use AF/AE are going to fail as well or that their
skills are lacking in some fashion. This come across, IHO, as sour grapes.
The fact that his automated camera didn't help him get the job done doesn't
preclude that other cameras would have been better.
Since I've never stated anything about studio photography in particular (as
far as what one should use), I don't see where my experience in it has any
bearing. Except for some sarcastic remarks about some studio photography
techniques being less than useful out in the woods, I haven't even commented
on studio photography - nor will I. It doesn't interest me. But if it did,
I'd buy equipment suitable for the field - I wouldn't suggest that what is
necessary out in the woods is suitable in the studio or vice versa. So, why
would I need to be an expert in studio photography - seeing as almost
everything I've ever wanted to photography is miles away from a studio and
that I have expressed no opinions on studio photography?
> Thus, on the surface, your credibility
> is lower in any argument where comparisons of technique and equipment
> across the two types of photography are being made.
If I were making comparisons, then perhaps. But I've yet to make a single
comparison of which is better for all photography, nor do I want to. I've
only stated that AF/AE has its purposes, and that in some cases it is the
difference between getting a shot and not getting a damn thing. I doubt
that would be the case in a wedding - so I'd never suggest that a proper
wedding photographer must have an F5 with a NiMH battery pack and a
80-200/2.8 AF-S set to P mode in Ch film advance while using dynamic AF. On
the other hand, such a kit in such a mode could be quite useful for action
photography. And the fact is that one could do quite well at action
photography with such a setup. On the other hand, Gene has asserted that MF
is just as capable - in this and other threads - of action photography.
Quite simply, the fact that good action photography was done before AF isn't
proof that it is as effective. Perhaps you need to look a little below the
surface - you'll see I've never suggested that AF/AE is the only useful
system.
> >> Anyone who argues one side or the other without personally being
> >> competent to do both types of photography is "talking through their
> >> hat" and can not possibly be considered credible.
> >
> >Huh? Someone with experience in wildlife photography can't talk about
> >what's necessary for the type of photography they're doing? Someone who
> >does wedding photography can't talk about wedding photography? Unless
> >they've both become experts at both? What an elitist point of view.
> >
>
> I hate to keep defending "Tom", but you are not reading what he said
> correctly. All he is saying is that to intelligently compare the
> techniques and equipment of wildlife and wedding photography, you
> should know both. This is an obvious conclusion, not at all an
> elitist statment, He clearly never said that "Someone who does
> wedding photography can't talk about wedding photography" or anything
> like that. You are misquoting / misunderstanding his statements.
He did clearly say that anyone taking one side or the other must be
competent to do both types of photography in order to be credible.
Therefore, in order to suggest that automation is helpful in wildlife
photography that person must not only be capable in wildlife photography,
but also other forms of photography. I've made no comparisons - I've only
suggested that automation has its uses and detailed how I find it useful for
my own form of photography. I've never suggested that it is necessary or
important in any other forms of photography, as I wouldn't consider myself a
credible source of wisdom on those other forms. But according to what Tom
has said, I cannot be a credible source of any opinion on what is capable
camera equipment or technique - even within the narrow field that I have
most of my experience in. That's why I called it an elitist statement, as
few would ever fit Tom's classification as credible sources.
Roro75
fires the ERR came back, and stays on. Stan
Michael Hung
is
trying to detect the ISO code for DX and found that there is no film in
it, so the Err !
Michael - Do not reply to my e-mail address. It is full of junk mail
and
I don't use it anymore.
Mark Bergman
"Roro75" <ror...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000309074552...@ng-xe1.aol.com...
Photo Guy
mode. Both dry fire without film.
Michael Hung wrote in message <38C80A29...@hotmail.com>...
>Make sure the camera not in 'DX' if you have no film in it ! The camera
>is
>trying to detect the ISO code for DX and found that there is no film in
>it, so the Err !
>
>Michael - Do not reply to my e-mail address. It is full of junk mail
>and
>I don't use it anymore.
>
>carl valle wrote:
>>
>> the err light indicates the transport is not set for frame 0. this
happened
>> to me when i removed the film manually . the way to reset the err is to
open
>> the back with the power on and then close it again. this resets the
>> transport. or to fire a frame and let the camera figure out theres no
film
>> in it, as you did. I wonder how many of these returned cameras are simply
>> wiped off and tested and repackaged?
>>
>> Roro75 <ror...@aol.com> wrote in message
carl valle
when the DX is set, i have gotten wrong asa this way. oh well
------- as for the original post - sounds like the camera is broke
Photo Guy <NOS...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:reZx4.182$Ld....@news.swbell.net...