What do you suppose will be the next biggest evolution in the field of photography?

Question

Starting with the daguerreotype and continuing to present times, photography has evolved from a very difficult, tedious, time consuming, expensive process, that only professionals used, into a quick, efficient, relatively inexpensive medium practiced by just about everyone. Digital photography as I see is just a continuation of this historical trend. So the question I pose is what is next? Perhaps new camera design, software, print technology? I personally feel that print technology is not where it should be in comparison to the advances that have been made in sensor technology, but I would like to hear opinions.

this is off the topic but in response to some of the rants. At the turn of the century when Kodak introduced the Brownie camera putting photography into the hands of the average joe for the first time, there was a sincere worry amongst professional photographers that their careers were in jeopardy or that photography as an art was on a serious decline. Alfred Stieglitz was one of these people and made great efforts to promote photography as a fine art in America. Similar worries were expressed about 35mm film and the SLR camera. Yet despite every significant advancement in the field of photography those who have talent, those who truly are good are not trumped by the amature who buys the latest technology. There is no reason to worry that technology will somehow displace true artistic talent and merit. Photography is and has always been a technology driven field. There is no reason to fear embracing new technology.

Answer 1

Who cares is my answer. (no disrepect is a great question)

Having skill, knowledge and ability will always be worth more than a new camera. Does the lastest hammer make everyone a great builder? (maybe a digital/automatic/electric one might? i really dont think it would know how to build a house?)

All this rave about how great digital is? Scan a (low grain) piece of quality film at 14000dpi and then rave about how great digital is.

REALLY all the digital revolution has done is make poor images more abundent - thats a good thing for professions (good ones anyway),

Yes digital is more convinient and it lets poor photographers "get away" with more, but really composition and setting up lights, getting perfect exposure everytime - no cameras will ever be able to do all those things.

a

Answer 2

I think that in the near future that sensors will evolve in conjuction with algorithms used to process the images. The image resolution will continue to increase and there will be greater dynamic range. That is where the market push will continue to be.

Printing technology will continue to evolve in terms of color rendition and archival quality, but I don't expect anything dramatic. I can print digitally as well as I ever could in the dark room, but, like traditional printing, it is a discipline in its own right. The highest quality prints have always been the labor of a craftsman.

Printers will continue to be a two level market, with the lower consumer end producing nice snapshots and the professionally driven prosumer and professional printers developing in terms of color rendition and speed.


Rant

Off topic, I love digital. I can do things that weren't even dreamed of 40 years ago when I was first learning about making images and printing, or were so difficult nobody would do them. It's a liberation. But, I agree with everyone who complains about anyone who goes out and buys a digital camera calling themselves a photographer and that digital seems to be lowering the bar in quality.

Yahoo!Answers has the worst examples of this in many of its questions. Because, on the surface, digital is so easy (it's not) and the results are available instantly, nobody seems to be studying composition or learning what goes into capturing an image.

You get the 'I'm a photographer and shooting a wedding this week, what setting should I use and do I need to buy a flash and which one?' questions (and worse).

There is an upside to this though, they can't really compete. The pictures are generally horrible unless they get lucky, the customer service they can offer is horrible and they basically work the nickle and dime one offs.

Anyway, amateurs, advanced amateurs and pros will always be photographers and everyone else will be a snapshooter.
There is always a telling difference in the results.

Rant off.

Answer 3

Rant/Answer?
I actually agree with Jennifer. It has taken me almost 20 years to get where I am today with a TON of hard work, countless books read and probably thousands of rolls of film shot. Digital is great for instant gratification but no one wants to STUDY Photography anymore....they run out to the store, buy a digital camera and slap a title on the end of their name...Viola! They are a "Photographer".
I myself would like to see printing quality improved....color AND quality of print. It has come a long way but still could use many enhancements.

EDIT:
I have no problem with someone surpassing me in talent due to the fact that my name is not Ansel Adams nor anyone else famous (AND alive).
I did not have the opportunity to attend college...I had to WORK for a living while teaching myself Photography in my very rare free time.
Don't single out and slander people specifically until all facts are known. We have the right to Freedom of Speech just as much as the next person but never in my answer did I call anyone a "crybaby" or single out specific phrases to use slanderously because someone didn't like what two of us had to say. That is very immature and extremely unethical.
Younger people can actually learn from those of us that have more experience but unfortunately in some cases that doesn't seem to be an option because some of the younger generation seem to think they know it ALL and those of us that are older have gone through life learning absolutely nothing.

Answer 4

Not such a lot an reply for your query, however a response to a couple others. I'm rather inspired with the D300 sensor. Nikon simply got here out with the D3 with a whole-structure CMOS sensor, however this can be a (nominal) 12 MP digital camera - the identical because the D300. Is there any purpose why they can not simply double the dimensions of the D300 APS sensor and endup with a 24-25 MP digital camera? Okay, it could "most effective" pass to ISO 6400 alternatively of 25,six hundred, however simply suppose the snapshot high-quality. They might name it the D3f Mark II or whatever ingenious like that. Popular Science confirmed a mega-megapixel digital camera approximately 6 months in the past, however I put out of your mind who made it. I imply, it used to be whatever like one hundred MP! It had an excessively bizarre array of lenses at the entrance that seemed variety of like the attention of a fly. There have been probably 21-25 mini-lenses all developed into one focusing floor. This used to be to avert vignetting, I suppose, however spreading the sunshine flippantly to all ingredients of the sensor. The factor needed to do plenty of computing to merge the entire mini-snap shots. Is whatever like this invaluable? Who can procedure a one hundred MP snapshot with out renting time on a Cray...

Answer 5

You have gotten a lot of opinions but no answers.... let us look to what NASA is doing now and anticipate that it will one day be affordable for the common man.

My opinion is that the next big step will be in the direction of resolution of the image. In just a few years we have gone from less than 1 MP to a consumer camera with 10MP or more... I think one day we will be shooting snapshots with GigaPixel cameras with no delay in the shutter. And the ability to zoom to over 600mm with a P&S optical zoom camera. I can get just over 600mm with my Kodak P850 with a 1.5 adapter with 51MP resolution now.

beaux

Answer 6

It will take a breakthrough in order to achieve it in lifelike color, but the logical next step for photography is holography. Although at present possible only under controlled, laboratory-like conditions, holography -- which will also be the basis for long-anticipated 3-D television -- is not an impossible advance.

Answer 7

I believe the that our technology today become increasing and progressing about the technical trend of photography in which the mostly professional can only benefit of it.

I believe it is more on upgrading the capture and the speed of it's technical system.

Answer 8

I am hoping its going to be to revert to about 30 years ago when photographers who trained for the job were respected and amatuers didn't muscle in their territory.

Digital has brought with it every Tom, Dick and Jane with a digital camera and the idea they know it all.

I am hoping the technology goes in a direction where real professionals can thrive again and people can't be conned by photo cowboys. After all surgeons get trained and have proper staineless equipment and aspirant surgeons have plastic equipment that doesn't really work and doesn't cut anyone.

Plastic cameras for amateur photograhers I say!

Answer 9

I have no answer, but I just wanted to say thanks to all those who do. I've enjoyed reading your thoughts.

I wish I could do a DURABLE print at home, similar to the ones I can get from Flickr or Mpix... It's some kind of UV coating and it is obviously not expensive, so maybe it's just around the corner for consumer use at home.

Answer 10

Something like Photosynth.

It will change how we share images and how we see the world.