Stephane Tougard
Well-Known Member
Excellent article and first step how to take your power back against the over usage and AI and post processing in digital photography.
HOW YOUR CAMERA’S AUTOFOCUS IS MAKING YOU A BAD PHOTOGRAPHER
- Thread starter Stephane Tougard
- Start date
Stevenson Gawen
Well-Known Member
Thanks for the link. Short but succinct.
I think I'm glad I got into photography in an era where focus-recompose was the only option.
At least without spending way more than I could at the time.
I never, ever, use the auto area options for AF. Way too unpredictable - I'm taking the photo - so I want to know what's in focus!
Of course if I had something like an A7v (with AI AF!) I might feel differently... but I like to think that my principle would hold.
I think I'm glad I got into photography in an era where focus-recompose was the only option.
At least without spending way more than I could at the time.I never, ever, use the auto area options for AF. Way too unpredictable - I'm taking the photo - so I want to know what's in focus!
Of course if I had something like an A7v (with AI AF!) I might feel differently... but I like to think that my principle would hold.
Len Philpot
Well-Known Member
It depends on what I'm shooting. 98% of time I use spot focus, but occasionally zone focus will make sense. If I'm trying to capture something unpredictable (e.g., waves, moving animals, etc.) I might even go to Auto Selection AF (as Canon calls it). But mostly it's single spot focus mode. If I'm using the viewfinder and feeling charitable
I might even use the dials to position the focus point. Otherwise I'll focus and recompose. However, I have to be careful that I choose the right place to focus. With Live View, I just touch it. Live View gets used pretty much only when I'm shooting landscapes on a tripod, though. I can't stand trying to use Live View handheld.
Stephane Tougard
Well-Known Member
This is a photo of Rolf Bernard taken in 1980 during the Olympiad of Moscow. Note that despite R. Bernard is in the middle of the jump, there is no blur due to the movement, which suppose a very high shutter speed, such as 1/2000. The film is quite grainy, looks like it has been pushed to ISO 800 maybe even more (it was a sunny day with plenty of light, but you need plenty of light for this kind of shot).
The angle of the lens is narrow and the DOF says that the aperture was quite open, I would bet for a 300 at F2.8 set at the maximum aperture.
Considering the photographer is using a Nikon (use equivalents for Canon), he had either a F2 or a F3 (the F3 was released a few months before this photo was taken, so the F2 is more likely). So the camera is full manual, at least there is no autofocus whatsoever. It counts only 36 shots per roll, the motor that you can add on the F2 goes up to 5 fps, but can not shoot for ever, only 7 seconds of continus shots before the roll has to be changed.
The lens was likely the 300mm F2.8 released in 1978. It's a fully manual focus lens, of course. More information on this lens:
Nikon 300mm f/2.8 ED IF Review & Sample Images by Ken Rockwell
Nikon 300mm f/2.8 ED IF Review & Sample Images by Ken Rockwell
www.kenrockwell.com
How is it done ?
The photographer focus in advance where he knows the jumper will be at some point, then he waits the good moment and shots no more than a few shots just before and after the right position. Everything happens in a second, with good reflexes, there is no need for more than 4 or 5 shots (1 second) to get the good one in the middle. One roll can cover 6 to 7 jumpers.
How would you do the same shot today with a D6 and the latest 300mm ?
Len Philpot
Well-Known Member
That's a definite advantage when it can be done, no doubt. I've done a similar thing, i.e., focusing on another object in the area while waiting on the true subject -- e.g., focus on a perch and wait for the bird to arrive. In such cases it serves more as a "pre-focus" operation, to get close to best focus in advance, then refine if possible.
Stevenson Gawen
Well-Known Member
An awful lot easier!
But I take your point... real skill was needed then. It still is, but a lot less.I've been thinking about your thread on what defines a real photographer. I reckon I'm not one by your standards, but maybe an aspiring one... But at the same time I'm happy with where I am in my photography journey (to use a cliched expression) as I'm very aware of the deficiencies in a lot of my work but also aware that it's a lot better than it was 5 years ago.
Yep, I was a bit brief in my claim to never using auto area... My Nikon I always have in af-c 3d tracking, on back button focus. So there's no AF tied to the shutter button, and while the AF button is depressed it will pick up focus on the centre point, then continually focus and attempt to track the object that was under the centre point to start with. It's no AI but it works well for most action photography.
And the neat thing is that I can use it for focus- recompose for static subjects too, without changing any settings. A short press will focus, then that's it... No need to lock focus between frames or anything else.
On my older cameras I just use normal center point af-s... And focus recompose as needed, or flip to manual when needed.
My 3c!
Ivar Dahl-Larsen
Well-Known Member
I fully agree with what is being written here by Stephane. I too started early in my "career" as a photographer, ( career is an amusement on my part ). At the age of 19 and in a month I reach 75. I've tried manual focusing, but as time passes by, focusing manually has become harder, and more difficult. But operations of the two eyes, downsizing to Olympus, with stabilisation in the body, not mine. Manual focusing has again become a pleasure as well as resorting to old manual lenses.
Gary R. Smith
Well-Known Member
Stephane did seem to take a contrary view on some things but I don't understand why he left in a huff. When I recently shot my Voigtländer, I was unimpressed with the rangefinder focus but using the rangefinder magnification in the Leica iiic was a joy.
Pete Askew
Admin
I have the impression that Stehane's main reason for posting here was to promote his blog which contains most of the same content, but maybe I am being unfair. Friendly dialogue has always been a strength of RPF even give the subjective nature of photography.
Gary R. Smith
Well-Known Member
One of the things that seemed to set him off was blurry shots. I've been looking at collections of shots from so-called "great" photographers and quite a few are "blurry" - albeit: intentionally.
Rob MacKillop
Edinburgh Correspondent
I've been know to have one or two blurry shots in my time...
Ivar Dahl-Larsen
Well-Known Member
And some have blurry visions. 
After all I must admit that I appear blurry in the background here.
After all I must admit that I appear blurry in the background here.
Paul Taylor
Active Member
I don't agree with most of that blog.
The author refers to modern cameras as "technological recklessness" and seems to completely missed a huge portion of the industry.
I talk/interact witha lot of "amatuer / semi pro" photographers that take amazing pictures. They are nearly all under the age of 45ish. They ALL started in digital, using the modern features. Most describe it as a "gateway drug" to exploring the more creative aspects of photography. Some got into film, or more manual cameras because they started attaching "vintage" lenses to their modern mirrorless cameras and loved the process of manual focusing, or the asthetic. This lead them to buying a film camera, that lead to being more purposeful in their shooting due to the constraints. Also, I know a few people who have physical limitations that made photography basically impossible for them - but thanks to modern "reckless technology" like anti-shake, autofocus, focus assist, etc -they can finally enjoy the hobby/lifestyle.
I also don't like how the author talks down about "point and shoot" photography. Being proficient at point and shoot style photography is an art all by itself. Some of the most impactful photos in history have been "point and shoot." The recent explosion of the market for old point and shoot digital cameras is also interesting. Seems the people who loves these cameras love working around the limitations of early digital photography. The best way to improve as a photographer is work within constraints.
I also don't see the point in the whole paragraph about "point focus and recompose." Most digital shooters I know do this. It is easier than ever with modern cameras with directional pads and touch screens. Author mention post processing - so I am going to assume this was mentioned in the belief that photographer who post process images are somehow inferior to those who don't, which is total B.S. Post processing (in regards to the specific paragraph regarding composition) has been done since the camera was invented. Whether the image recomposed (IE cropped) in the camera, the darkroom, or in software doesn't matter. The final image conveying the photographers intent is what matters.
I also had a chuckle at the exaggeration of "shooting portraits at 20 FPS" and "Culling a few hundred photos of the same moment" and the statement of "Instead, we need to shoot more carefully." I will apologize in advance for those who will be offended by what I say about this. This is B.S. through and through. Any photographer who actually uses their gear will eventually have suffered the aggravation and/or heartbreak of a malfunction in the process and lost a "moment," Experienced photographers will never imply that being able to have several backups of a shot - even if a ridiculous amount - is a bad thing. I do this with film all the time. I will purposely take the same shots, spaced several shots apart and/or on different rolls of film to ensure I have a good negative. Same with digital. More is always better when dealing with capturing something important. Being a "one and done" photographer doesn't make you magically better than someone else - just makes you more prone to error or loss.
To me, that whole blog post reeked of gatekeeping and of someone who actually isn't aware of what is currently going on in the photography world - or a poorly disguised attempt at clickbait . The truth of the matter is that the biggest driving force in more creative photography (such as film) is actually the photographers the author seems to be devaluing. The demographic that is driving the more creative, manual, and "traditional" photography market is the demographic that wasn't alive to take traditional photography classes in high school/college, have film developed, have manual only operation, or be alive when film cameras were still the "go-to." These people were born into the digital world, and they are finding value in the processes that "came before them" and as such, are keeping the market alive. This happens all the time, in a variety of lifestyles. What was old, is new again.
As far as social media goes - while I do agree a lot of it is a negative influence, so much of it is truly inspiring. I subscribe to at least 45+ photographer youtube channels - and I have a sneaking suspicion the author of that blog wouldn't like or isn't aware of most of them. You have personalities like LinusandhisCamera, Captured by Sam, GrainCheck, GrainyDays, Kyle McDougall, Vulandes, Nick Carver, Sophia Carey, Matt Marrash, etc who are teaching people the more artistic, creative, and technical side of photography. None of them feel the need to talk down about someone making use of "reckless technology." I don't like some of their "creative styles" but I watch any way as the process is inspiring, and watching their style/vision conveyed through their photography makes me want to pick up my cameras and go make some photographs.
Pretty much the only thing I really, truly agreed with in that blog was the very end, where it says to not let the rush of likes/subscribes/etc influence your work and to print you photos. Those are both 100% true.
At the end of the day, the camera doesn't matter. You can have a super-computer in your hand and still take "bad" pictures. You can have a walmart disposable and manage a shot that literally changes history. The more user friendly cameras get, it means a lower the barrier of entry. The more people that can enter the lifestyle/hobby means there will people that will take it seriously, learn how to use the camera to it's fullest and make amazing photographs. Also means some of those people will do it for the "wrong" reasons - but they don't stick around do they? It doesn't matter if it is a full manual, a digicam from 2004, or the latest and greatest mirrorless the more people we bring into photography ultimately leads to a better time for all of us.
The author refers to modern cameras as "technological recklessness" and seems to completely missed a huge portion of the industry.
I talk/interact witha lot of "amatuer / semi pro" photographers that take amazing pictures. They are nearly all under the age of 45ish. They ALL started in digital, using the modern features. Most describe it as a "gateway drug" to exploring the more creative aspects of photography. Some got into film, or more manual cameras because they started attaching "vintage" lenses to their modern mirrorless cameras and loved the process of manual focusing, or the asthetic. This lead them to buying a film camera, that lead to being more purposeful in their shooting due to the constraints. Also, I know a few people who have physical limitations that made photography basically impossible for them - but thanks to modern "reckless technology" like anti-shake, autofocus, focus assist, etc -they can finally enjoy the hobby/lifestyle.
I also don't like how the author talks down about "point and shoot" photography. Being proficient at point and shoot style photography is an art all by itself. Some of the most impactful photos in history have been "point and shoot." The recent explosion of the market for old point and shoot digital cameras is also interesting. Seems the people who loves these cameras love working around the limitations of early digital photography. The best way to improve as a photographer is work within constraints.
I also don't see the point in the whole paragraph about "point focus and recompose." Most digital shooters I know do this. It is easier than ever with modern cameras with directional pads and touch screens. Author mention post processing - so I am going to assume this was mentioned in the belief that photographer who post process images are somehow inferior to those who don't, which is total B.S. Post processing (in regards to the specific paragraph regarding composition) has been done since the camera was invented. Whether the image recomposed (IE cropped) in the camera, the darkroom, or in software doesn't matter. The final image conveying the photographers intent is what matters.
I also had a chuckle at the exaggeration of "shooting portraits at 20 FPS" and "Culling a few hundred photos of the same moment" and the statement of "Instead, we need to shoot more carefully." I will apologize in advance for those who will be offended by what I say about this. This is B.S. through and through. Any photographer who actually uses their gear will eventually have suffered the aggravation and/or heartbreak of a malfunction in the process and lost a "moment," Experienced photographers will never imply that being able to have several backups of a shot - even if a ridiculous amount - is a bad thing. I do this with film all the time. I will purposely take the same shots, spaced several shots apart and/or on different rolls of film to ensure I have a good negative. Same with digital. More is always better when dealing with capturing something important. Being a "one and done" photographer doesn't make you magically better than someone else - just makes you more prone to error or loss.
To me, that whole blog post reeked of gatekeeping and of someone who actually isn't aware of what is currently going on in the photography world - or a poorly disguised attempt at clickbait . The truth of the matter is that the biggest driving force in more creative photography (such as film) is actually the photographers the author seems to be devaluing. The demographic that is driving the more creative, manual, and "traditional" photography market is the demographic that wasn't alive to take traditional photography classes in high school/college, have film developed, have manual only operation, or be alive when film cameras were still the "go-to." These people were born into the digital world, and they are finding value in the processes that "came before them" and as such, are keeping the market alive. This happens all the time, in a variety of lifestyles. What was old, is new again.
As far as social media goes - while I do agree a lot of it is a negative influence, so much of it is truly inspiring. I subscribe to at least 45+ photographer youtube channels - and I have a sneaking suspicion the author of that blog wouldn't like or isn't aware of most of them. You have personalities like LinusandhisCamera, Captured by Sam, GrainCheck, GrainyDays, Kyle McDougall, Vulandes, Nick Carver, Sophia Carey, Matt Marrash, etc who are teaching people the more artistic, creative, and technical side of photography. None of them feel the need to talk down about someone making use of "reckless technology." I don't like some of their "creative styles" but I watch any way as the process is inspiring, and watching their style/vision conveyed through their photography makes me want to pick up my cameras and go make some photographs.
Pretty much the only thing I really, truly agreed with in that blog was the very end, where it says to not let the rush of likes/subscribes/etc influence your work and to print you photos. Those are both 100% true.
At the end of the day, the camera doesn't matter. You can have a super-computer in your hand and still take "bad" pictures. You can have a walmart disposable and manage a shot that literally changes history. The more user friendly cameras get, it means a lower the barrier of entry. The more people that can enter the lifestyle/hobby means there will people that will take it seriously, learn how to use the camera to it's fullest and make amazing photographs. Also means some of those people will do it for the "wrong" reasons - but they don't stick around do they? It doesn't matter if it is a full manual, a digicam from 2004, or the latest and greatest mirrorless the more people we bring into photography ultimately leads to a better time for all of us.
Last edited:
Gary R. Smith
Well-Known Member
I think that was the general consensus. Stephane hasn't been seen here in a while. In fact you'll soon realize that the currently active group here is rather small.
Paul Taylor
Active Member
I picked up on it was a pretty small active user base on here, but that just means less is lost in the noise of larger forums.
Ivar Dahl-Larsen
Well-Known Member
This is well said Paul and to the core of photography. After all, it is how every individual chooses to handle his tool and it is, to me rather silly to somewhat ridicule certain ways one operates with a camera. After all, it is the result of one's pleasure and work which should be essential—"some like the mother, some like her daughter and some like them both."
Paul Taylor
Active Member
I looked at the author of that blog's social media and previous stuff. For someone who speaks out against post production so much - he sure likes to post about buying his lightroom presets. His instagram looks very instagrammy too. Seems to be one of those writers who's beliefs follow whatever gets clicks/likes.
I just get tired of reading these divisive clickbait "blogs" that insist on trying to establish some sort of hierarchy among photographers using laughable made up standards. The two things that matter in photography is that the end result matches the photographer's expectation , and that they enjoyed whatever process they used to get that end result.
I just get tired of reading these divisive clickbait "blogs" that insist on trying to establish some sort of hierarchy among photographers using laughable made up standards. The two things that matter in photography is that the end result matches the photographer's expectation , and that they enjoyed whatever process they used to get that end result.
Ivar Dahl-Larsen
Well-Known Member
In addition, I recall a "humble" gentleman out west, who is very fond of Holga or was it Helga, memory fails me at times. A Holy camera I think.
And he did swell, very happy with the results, to my astonishment.Similar threads
