and the next evolution in photography is...?

Question

Photographs have always been dependent upon technology whereas creativity for the most part exists independently of any technological advancement. Yet many photographers that I have met or listen to equate technological advances in photography, in particular digital photography as a threat to their job security. But could technology ever be a threat to the livelihood of photographers? Case in point. My last question had to deal with the next advancement in photography. As so many pointed out, the biggest difference between a pro and an amature is creativity and more basic, an understanding of design fundamentals, a gap which some engineers at an undisclosed company is trying to bridge . Imagine a camera that had a basic understanding of 2D design concepts as well as color theory that could relay to the user with a simple green or red light whether a scene was aesthetically pleasing or not according to basic design concepts/models.

-continued...The capabilities of the camera are not perfect, but the system does work to some extent to improve your compositions, and at this moment is limited to portraits and simple landscapes.
The question I ask it twofold. To all the non-profesional photographers would such an option be attractive to you? To the professional, do you see this technology as a threat and if so why?

Answer 1

oh im so scarred imagine a camera with a brain. its never going to happen...........if it does great all amateur pictures willl still look the same cause some camera will tell them what to do.

what next a paint brush that does all the painting (electronic, automatic), i bet all the great artist shake in their boots thinking about that - not (not like humour)

what next a camera goes to photography school and learns about light/lighting etc then packs the gear, drives to a location, sets up the lights, makes perfect shots, drives home and asks you to plug in the USB cable?

the more they "dumb up" cameras the better for me, then the gulf between my years of study (like at photography school etc) and idiots who think cameras will ever be smart will forever grow.

like i said before: good pros have nothing to worry about, those than reply on Photoshop and automatic this and that they should quit now before amateurs learn the same auto fuctions

a

Answer 2

A camera that judges an aesthetically pleasing scene still will not over-rule personal taste. How can one individual or a single company say what is and what is not aesthetically pleasing in the first place? I could look at a photo and see it in a completely different view than the next person that follows along behind me.

It would help those just starting out possibly but to those of us that understand and apply thought and composition along with usage of talent it really would be non-beneficial to us. I never do "standard" shots. I tend to go out of the box, look for new and interesting angles and go for the "WOW!" factor.

Is digital photography a threat to job security of photographers?....Nah. You still can take a bad photo with a digital camera. The only "threat" is amateurs running out, buying a digital camera, slapping the title "Photographer" on the end of their name and producing bad photos using the same title as those with experience.
When people approach me to do photos for them, they more likely than not request my using 35mm vs. digital camera. 35mm photos are still very much in demand for quality and the talent of the photographer BEHIND the camera.

As for technology being a threat to the photographer....I don't see how that could happen. Photography is an Art. Art is creativity. Creativity comes from the mind and if the equipment has no mind nor the thought processes for the proper application of Creativity, then how could it be a threat? You would still have to have a person behind the equipment applying the usage of the technology.

Answer 3

Not so much an answer to your question, but a reaction to some others. I'm fairly impressed with the D300 sensor. Nikon just came out with the D3 with a full-format CMOS sensor, but it is a (nominal) 12 MP camera - the same as the D300. Is there any reason why they can't just double the size of the D300 APS sensor and endup with a 24-25 MP camera? Okay, it would "only" go to ISO 6400 instead of 25,600, but just imagine the image quality. They could call it the D3f Mark II or something creative like that. Popular Science showed a mega-megapixel camera about 6 months ago, but I forget who made it. I mean, it was something like 100 MP! It had a very weird array of lenses on the front that looked sort of like the eye of a fly. There were maybe 21-25 mini-lenses all built into one focusing surface. This was to avoid vignetting, I think, but spreading the light evenly to all parts of the sensor. The thing had to do a lot of computing to merge all of the mini-images. Is something like this worthwhile? Who can process a 100 MP image without renting time on a Cray...

Answer 4

I think they have enough trouble with "face detection" right now to even consider an advance such as analyzing esthetic proportions. FD DOES sell cameras, even though the user could do the same thing better and just as fast if not faster. I'm sure a camera that placed a grid and also analyzed it could be called an "Aesthetic Analyzer" or something cute enough to use in marketting and be a commercial success. Successful in boosting camera sales, that is. I mostly agree with Ryan saying that esthetics is so subjective that it's hard to imagine a simple computer ever saying, "I don't know what art is, but I know what I like."

Answer 5

Esthetics is such a grey area. Things I find pleasing, might be boring, or even disturbing to another. I have lots of examples about that, if you have the time, hehe...

As for creativity and technology, I imagine painters thought of cameras as toys, and BS distractions, way back when, and not worthy of comparison or artistic output. Kind of the same way film shooters feel about digital. Little artistic value, unworthy competition, etc...

Basically, I dont think one is better or worse than another, painting with oils, film photos and a lab, digital with camera and photoshop. They all have their place. If the user enjoys it, can manipulate the brush and paints, or the light hitting the film or sensor, to get what they want, its all good.

It might not be commercially acceptable, in all cases, but what is??

How many commercial photos from "pros" have you seen, that you thought to yourself, I would have done it "this way" and it would be a better photo. How many amateurs have taken a photo, that made you say, "wow!"??

Opinions, and esthetics will never be able to be programmed. Too many variables. All we can do is argue about them, or accept the differences.

Answer 6

I think it's a threat to a professional photographer because like digital, there are many people who get into the business because it is easier to learn.
I think it's hard for professional photographers nowadays with all of these technological advancements. I work in the automotive photography field and we are starting to use a lot of CGI now. Photographers who have been shooting cars for 20 years are now being passed up for CGI houses. It really sucks and all they can really do is learn CGI or be a lighting consultant.
Photographers 20 years ago knew everything about film and chemicals, paper and the darkroom.
These days things change every year. I think the craft is gone and I would hate to be one of those guys. There is no job security.

Answer 7

Try Trick Photography Special Effects : http://tinyurl.com/PFd4vscwLr