Do you need an SLR??
 

I've just looked through my gallery on WPF & thought, 'how many of those images actually required the versatitity / percieved image quality of an SLR'...my initial thoughts are that possibly only 20%; maybe not that many as I mainly view on a 15" screen anyway...

What about your shots..could you make do with a 'point & shoot'..?..If you had to would you still carry on with this hobby?

Is the new questionable priority 'what editing software' & not 'what camera'..??..

What will I use in the future most..probably my SLR..hypocritical b*****d eh..!!

Al.

On a manual camera some sort of SLR or rangefinder system is practically essential: without it you have scale focus, or guesswork, which takes a lot of practice to use successfully (I ruined about 50 pictures when I first got my scale-focus Minox for lack of practice. Now I get it right just about all the time =) )

I do agree that there is not much point shelling out for an SLR if you're going to stick it in Auto mode and work from there.
Editing software is a corruption of the art :P

More important is the fact that SLRs have interchangeable lenses, which allows for a vast amount of effects and compositions to be achieved. That said, digital bridge cameras today have such insane focal ranges that they practically roll all that versatility into one electronic package (boring).

I and many other photographers have made some excellent shots with scale focus cameras and digital point and shoots.

More importantly, SLRs are just another opportunity for big boys to buy bigger, more expensive toys...and more of them!

I disagree with you, editing software is not corruption of the art.The raw picture is just the beginning of the process.The computer is a replacement for the hours spent in the darkroom.
As for SLRs I have n't used one for 5 years,it is much easier yo carry a bridge camera than a bag full of lenses.

Personally I find that the image quality that my DSLR gives me is streets ahead of what I can get from a compact. The best compact I have used is the Canon G9, at base ISO in good conditions it can produce stunning results. However when the light starts to fall and you push the ISO the IQ falls away dramatically. Would I carry on taking photos if it was all I had? Yes, I often take it out as it's small and discrete - but I know I'd miss the DSLR.

While I do view my images on the screen I like to print them out and I don't want to be limited by the camera. I recently got some 20"x30" prints done, I doubt they'd have looked as good from a compact.

As for editting software I still run on the most basic packages - DPP for RAW conversion and Elements for the rest. Sure I'd like CS3/4 but I cannot justify the cost, I don't think my images woudl improve much but it would make some processing stages easier/faster.

What will I use in the future? a no brainer for me, I'll keep uing my DSLR and lenses.

Quite agree. Editing software is just an extension of the days in the darkroom. I think Ansel Adams is a good, but not outstanding photographer, quite run of the mill actually - there's heresy for you. His real genius lay as a printer in the darkroom. This is not any different from using Photoshop. If you're not using editing software, or getting your film prints done by hand, then you certainly aren't getting the best out of your pictures.

As for, do you need an SLR? It all depends on what your style/subject matter is. If all you do is casual landscapes, party snaps, and shots of the kids running around in the garden, then I think the answer is a resounding no. If you do studio work, still-life, sports/action, anything that needs external flash or a rapid response once you've pressed the button, then the answer is a definite yes.

Having said that, there's a wedding snapper I know that supplements his dSLR with a G9 compact for some scenes as he feels it works better.

I started off using a compact film camera and progressed to using a SLR because it gave more control to get the images I wanted. In recent years I have packed a bridge camera to take on business trips to save weight and space. I have lived to regret the decision and wished I had packed my trusty SLR instead. I think much depends on your style of photography as to whether a non-SLR is good enough to get the images you want.

"Editing software is a corruption of the art " Alex an interesting statement or point of view.

Are you of the belief that film accurately records the scene ?

It's a fact of life that;
No two people see exactly the same thing.
No two recording mediums will give the same readings.
Reality goes through a number of transfer functions (filters) to produce an image in the brain.
Leaving photographic material in the developer for a few seconds longer is no different to using editing software.

Do I need an SLR? No - its not essential, but I enjoy the versatility it gives me. I still have and use my original digital camera - a Kodak DC210, and use a Fuji 645 film rangefinder camera. But I find Photoshop a much more essential tool. Henri Cartier-Bresson never made enlargements himself - he passed his negatives to a printing team who made all his enlargements. He then checked their work and then signed those prints he approved of. Post processing software is just an extension of the darkroom, allowing us to do in minutes what took hours in the darkroom. I agree with Rob, none of us see the same image, none of us record the same image. The perfect in camera image is like Rocking horse sh*t - it does not exist - It needs enlarging for a start and that is the first alteration....... unless you are using a 20-16 plate camera. It needs converting from negative to positive unless you are using digital. If using digital it again needs enlarging or magnifying to view it... which will alter the original image - so a straight from the camera shot does not exist. And yet again every viewer will have a different view as no two human eyes are the same. We all perceive things differently.

OK gents, here's my argument. I very much understand that Photoshop can be an extension of the darkroom, provided you don't go too overboard with special effects, colour correction etc.

First of all, what is photography? It's a word derived from two Greek words, φως (fos-light) and γραφω (grafo-I write).

As we know, there are two ways of 'writing light', or, to be a little more accurate, recording it's shape, intensity, and usually which part of the electromagnetic spectrum it belongs to. One is using photosensitive chemicals and the other is using light-sensitive cells all wired up together. So, each time you press your camera's shutter button, you are making a highly detailed-(though by no means perfect) recording of the shape, intensity and colour of the light being focused by the lens.

Once you start post-processing, you are removing the photo from this initial 'recording', a recording that was not perfect, but that is being rendered even more imperfect by playing around either in the darkroom or with photoshop. Unless you have a memory that can maintain an image of the scene better than the film frame or digital image, by post-processing you are removing yourself from that original 'light recording'.

Now, this 'imperfection' you are introducing into the shot can-and most probably will-make it look better to your eyes and indeed to the eyes of many others, and for that reason alone it is quite laudable. However, I maintain the stance that if all adjustments are made correctly on the camera, it is removing ourselves from the real thing. In the case of Photoshop, it becomes-albeit very slightly so-digital art (not that that's a bad thing).

Alex, the perfection you seek "in camera" is impossible by either chemical or electronic means. You have to use darkroom or digital software to obtain what is nearer "reality" than has been captured by the camera. Anyway why try to capture just reality? That again is impossible by definition, after all just framing and composing the shot alters reality and even just observing reality alters it if theoretical physicists are to be believed.
Anyway what is the point? I want to express my self through my photography, not just soulless recordings. That is why I consider subject, viewpoint, lens selection, aperture, shutter speed, white balance, even time of year/day etc etc. These choices and others like film choice and paper grade in the old days and similar today are what lifts photography from a mere attempt at a recording to an art form. :)

'Alex, the perfection you seek "in camera" is impossible by either chemical or electronic means.'

Yes, that's quite true.

'You have to use darkroom or digital software to obtain what is nearer "reality" than has been captured by the camera.'

That's impossible unless you have a perfect mental picture in your head of what the scene was like so you can then go away and make what your camera has produced into what you think is real. I trust a frame of film or a digital picture more than my memory when it comes to remembering light ;-)

'just framing and composing the shot alters reality'

IMHO this isn't so. Framing and composing simply give you another outlook on reality, they don't really change it. I guess there are little optical illusions you can create such as perspective but what you're looking at is still a real moment in time as seen in a particular way from a particular point.

When reading, we often come to find that fact can be stranger than fiction. The same is true of photography. I elevate my picture taking to an art form by 'recording light' in a way that strikes us as odd, interesting, beautiful..(at least I try my very best to)...whilst trying to stay as close as possible to what is real, and that 'close as possible' comes when you have a correctly taken picture in terms of exposure and sharpness.

However, when the picture isn't sharp or well exposed for whatever reason, perhaps it is reasonable to correct it ever so slightly ;-)