Technology - making us slave and lose our creativity?

[dingaroo]

given today's technology, we all have become lazy photographers. 20plus years ago when I was still using the olympus om 10, night photography was a real pain. had to really play around with light and in the actual dark room smelling chemicals (luckily i didn't become a film-processing-chemical-sniffer).

now, hit the shutter button and then hit the preview button, not nice, delete, adjust settings, and snap again. preview, nice or not? If good, go on, if not, repeat the steps again.

do you agree that we might be becoming robots and slaves to machines, and losing our creativity?

let me know what you think?

 

[CS TAN]

I think it is quite the contrary. Technology has provided more people the opportunity to enjoy photography:
[1] it speeds up the time to see what you actually have taken rather than waiting for days for a roll of film to be developed into prints
[2] it reduces the cost of developing films into prints since you can just preview it on the LCD screen instead. You only print what you think is good instead of getting 36 prints every time no matter how many of them are good ones.

Imagine for most people, after a few failed rolls of prints, how many will still continue to pursuit photography? Nowadays, people have the satisfaction of watching what they have taken instantly after they press the shutter button. It used to take days before you can see the developed film into prints. The learning curve is therefore shorten drastically.

 

[spheredome]

Loss of creativity, no really. During film era, not many people take pictures including myself but with digital, many are playing with software and posting on web which is a creative thing that I would not imagine with film.

The are more fanciful pictures I get to see since digital world. So in the subject of creativity, I would say increased. But I still feel that pictures taken on SIN are very normal.

Slave to technology... that statement is everywhere. One can't do with computer and how you draw your money is dependent on the machine. I cannot even remember how to change TV channel without remote.

 

[photoart]

this has been discuss many times here...

I don't think so...

creatively is a person's skills, technology in cameras and computers is just a medium to create things.

10-20years ago, people were using pen/pencil/paint to create paintings & drawings,today we have the latest machintoish and powerful graphic processing softwares,we use a mouse or stylus to sketch on tablets but that doesn't make us less creative.

in fact technology has made use more creative. we are not contented with just getting the right exposure and composition anymore, we want more.

technology allows us to do more...

in the 1970s, the movie Star Wars was made by filming wire frame models.George Lucas used traditional sets and location shoots to bring the high-tech space opera to life

Today George Lucas and other directors(like James Cameron for Avatar) uses the latest CGI technology for movies too, that does not make them less creative.

refer to this
http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/movies/article/752779---avatar-gives-lucas-impetus-to-revamp-star-wars-for-3-d


Lucas said:
"We've been looking for years and years and years of trying to take Star Wars and put it in 3-D,But, [the] technology hasn't been there. We've been struggling with it."


We can become a blind slave to technology(keep pressing on shutter button and deleting afterwards) but learn nothing from it..... or we can make technology our slaves and do all the hard work for us,so that we can learn faster(instead of waiting for film to process) and have more time to think and make our composition better and more creative

 

[Kleonn]

I'm still using film. Digital for me is too "cheat".

 

[Fotophilic]

given today's technology, we all have become lazy photographers. 20plus years ago when I was still using the olympus om 10, night photography was a real pain. had to really play around with light and in the actual dark room smelling chemicals (luckily i didn't become a film-processing-chemical-sniffer).

if we are doing what u said in the old days, we sound more like a robot and slave to our camera.

now, hit the shutter button and then hit the preview button, not nice, delete, adjust settings, and snap again. preview, nice or not? If good, go on, if not, repeat the steps again.

do you agree that we might be becoming robots and slaves to machines, and losing our creativity?

let me know what you think??

if we are doing what u said now, we are more like the controller and master to our camera.

 

[dolina]

Technology leveled the playing field and allows anyone to take great photos. So long as they read the intructional manual of their gear and follow the basics of creative visual arts.

 

[Dream Merchant]

Thread started ... yesterday.

http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=640537

 

[spheredome]

People, this topic is about creativity and slavery. Not about cheat, snap snap only or skill loss or take great pic on film.

 

[ed9119]

i would say the LACK of technology back in those days made us slaves and for some,. lose patience and money to see the out put of our creative juices

each era has its pros and cons


and guess what? the problem is not with the technology...... the problem is within THAT PERSON and how he treats technology

just always remember that humans would have long been extinct as a species without technology ...... striking stones to make fire? using sticks to hunt? putting on fur to stay warm? everything else after that ..... well you know what happened to us humans since then

 

[limwhow]

Hello, dingaroo.
I beg to differ.
With the easy availability of digital photos and the corresponding digital processing, I believe it's even easier for creative juices to flow.
The human mind is forever searching for different ways to do the same thing.
And this in its very self, is creativity in play.

 

[night86mare]

do you agree that we might be becoming robots and slaves to machines, and losing our creativity?

let me know what you think?

the dead horse has now become not just a cow with mad cow disease

it has now become an army of cows determined to take over the world.

 

[night86mare]

let me ask you, just take one example

light painting - how much people did light painting with film photography?

it was so hit and miss, worth it? :bsmilie:

 

[Leong23]

TS, maybe you should ask your a question prior posting this thread, do you shoot lousier photo and lose your creativity as compared to 20 years ago.

To me, digital photography exactly allow me to take more risk and make me less slave to my equipment, and concentrate on creativity, as compare to 19 years ago when i shooting with my Minolta X-300s.

 

[chanjyj]

let me ask you, just take one example

light painting - how much people did light painting with film photography?

it was so hit and miss, worth it? :bsmilie:

I'd deign to disagree. The harder it is to get the results, the more you try.

 

[zero o]

Dont blame technology for your own lack of effort to want to be creative.

 

[night86mare]

I'd deign to disagree. The harder it is to get the results, the more you try.

and then you run out of money.

your statement is like saying that if i want to fly, the harder it is to fly, the more i try to fly.

eventually i will break all my bones and die. simple as that.

are you saying that with film days, more people tried light painting? uh uh, i don't think so.

 

[chanjyj]

and then you run out of money.

your statement is like saying that if i want to fly, the harder it is to fly, the more i try to fly.

eventually i will break all my bones and die. simple as that.

are you saying that with film days, more people tried light painting? uh uh, i don't think so.

Are you implying that it cost so much with the 135 format?
It was not THAT prohibitive.

Let's see (on conservative side):
1 roll of film 36 shots ($4)
Development ($10)
Prints ($10)
Total: $24

If you couldn't get it within 2 rolls of film ($48)...

 

[night86mare]

Let's see (on conservative side):
1 roll of film 36 shots ($4)
Development ($10)
Prints ($10)
Total: $24

If you couldn't get it within 2 rolls of film ($48)...

now, think of the pain mike stobbs would have to go through if he used film as per your suggestion to get this gallery:

http://www.pbase.com/impalass/painting_with_light

let's compare costs of getting that gallery, keeping other things constant, the difference would be the film versus digital part righto?

assuming 1 roll per successful frame, make that 100 shots, that's 2.4K. looking as creative and sure now? :bsmilie:

 

[spheredome]

Not to confuse again with technology and creativity. Tech is a thing or tool while creativity is inspirational, thinking and process action. Regardless of film or digital, it is the end result that you want in this discussion.
While film and digital may each be able deliver the desired outcome (not same), it is already agreed that technology allows things to be achieved easier and cheaper (long run). No argument about it.
It is also well agreed that tech has enable more people to get into photography, thus a tremendous increase in knowledge pool. Remember ones mistake is another person's improvement, meaning one can skip repeating that test.

When you mentioned that the harder one flies, the more you try to learn harder, it is the because of human mentality as you will cherish the work more if the effort is hard. The other factor is because people tends to ignore the basics and jump into final with automation, thus limiting their progress. Just like cooking without knowing each ingredient taste like. But bottom up approach is also be another method... meaning, you stuck upon a desired picture suddenly and backtrack how you did it.

Ever wonder why charcoal steamboat tasted different from electric steamboat? It is not the tech, it is the charcoal burn smell. So apply where required.