On Jul 20, 2005, at 1:53 PM, Graywolf wrote:
That being said (and I know this is obvious, but I'll say it anyway),
the more automation, the less control for the user. Since you didn't
have control, you let the machine decide for you, and I guess one has
to live with those results, for better or worse...
This is a point I have tried to make for years. If you can not
depend upon the automation to do it right almost all of the time,
the only thing the automation does is help you forget the skills
you need when it doesn't. Oh yes, by the way, this is not just a
robocam problem, any meter used without thought will have the same
problem. Tis why I like incident meters so well (but even they have
to be used knowlegably for truly consistent exposure).
I disagree with these theses.
Most cameras that I'm interested in that provide automation features
also allow manual operation. No control is lost, unless by choice.
I've used cameras with automation for a while now and I haven't
forgotten any details of how to operate a fully manual camera. Same
as I've used cameras with meters for a very long time and still
remember the reasons for why the meter sees what it does. You forget
these things only if you choose to abandon yourself to the machine.
If you're using a camera that has *only* automation, then you learn
its responses and figure out how to make it do what you want. If you
understand the basics of photography, the automation's behaviors
should be readily apparent, and it is easy to instruct the automation
to do what you want in spite of its shortcomings.
The only thesis I agree with in this vein is that if you don't
understand the basics of photography, automation isn't going to save
your ass when it reaches its limitations.
Godfrey
