Jump to content

Commercial photography will be dead in ten years - prepare accordingly


Recommended Posts

No, not commercial images: commercial photography. Why would a client bother paying you to take a photo of a tub of yoghurt when they can pay someone else to create it with CGI? Photographers are expensive. 3D modellers aren't cheap, but they will be more efficient.

 

So - less need for cameras, lenses, flash guns, lights, filters, retouching, scanning, DOF bracketing, digital sensor artefacts, film artefacts... etc. In fact some things on that lists will disappear forever in commercial photography, such as RAW converters and retouching software. Though as you will see, cameras will be useful for certain applications.

 

Evidence:

 

(34:49)

 

(1:00)

 

(49:24)

 

The Numerous Questions Around The Rise Of CGI Models And Influencers

 

Start learning Blender, because it's going to be the only application you're going to need to know. The good news: it's open source and free, and starting to take market share from Maya. ::whistles::

 

So, what am I doing? I have done some commercial work. But I'm not a photographer that would shoot soft drinks or cars or things like that. But if I were, I'd already be heavily into Blender and giving some clients an option. In fact I have played with it, though that was a year ago.

 

You're welcome!

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Truth in advertising? Too much chance for optimism with CGI; do you want photos of actual food or what some marketing persons idea of what it should look like? OK, maybe a stretch, given what goes into food photography. And when it comes to details, no, photography is a lot faster and more accurate. Nor do I think the pay grade is a lot different. Everybody will be making nothing in the future anyway.

 

More than 20 years ago I worked for a company that built instrumentation and electronics. We had CAD drawings of everything. Starting with those, we had a guy who could make renderings that were almost indistinguishable from real advertising photos. We did use them a few times when the physical products weren't ready yet. Still, it never caught on as a regular thing.

 

I've had Blender on my machine for quite a while but rarely use it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for sharing this, Karim. I found it very interesting! Through my previous work in industrial IT, I was aware of the transition from 2-D CAD to 3-D modelling (3-D CAD/CAM). But I hadn't realized that CGI was so far advanced. Modelling from photos was new to me and really interesting too.

 

Some types of CGI are already used in movies and TV. Either to visually create beings, objects and situations that would be otherwise impossible (or dangerous) to film in reality. Or because the cost of 'filming in reality', possibly using physical models, would be prohibitively high.So movie genres such as Fantasy, Sci-fi and History make great use of CGI. It's blended in so well with "real" movie/TV scenes that viewers hardly notice it other than (often) being 'special effects' within the context of the movie. Then there's 'green room' filming where the person/people being filmed are projected onto a different background People kind of accept that - just as a hypothetical example - the BBC's 'New York correspondent' talks from an office that has a NY backdrop in the window behind him. but he might have talked from a 'green room' from which the NY backdrop was added as CGI. But your proposition (with examples) is that CGI will gradually replace some photographic genres.

 

I'm sure that CGI and its integration with film will be much improved 10 years down the line. At the moment, CGI models still look a bit 'lifeless' compared to real models - see this article on Engadget. But I'm sure that will change in 10 years too.

 

I'm not quite sure how CGI will play out in advertising products. But I have my doubts. Yes, people and products can be modeled and imaged using CGI. But advertisements are much more than 'the product'. Ads deliberately aim to create or maintain an emotional bond (or at least association) between the viewer and the brand or product. So just photographing a tub of yoghurt (or whatever) usually doesn't cut it. Filming a 'happy family breakfast', a 'welcome break at work', etc. and zooming in at the close on the tub of yoghurt to link the product to the emotion is much more likely. The same principle applies to most other products and services: ads aim to persuade (or reassure) you that their brand/product improves the quality of you life more than their competitors do.

 

I agree with you that some (video)photography will probably be replaced by CGI-imaging. My guess is that the 'first adapters' will be in technically-based markets and products. High on 'specs' and confidence but low on emotion. For example: business-to-business advertising: you publish CGi-generated B2B videos and/or photos of your component/gadget.

 

I do agree with you that future commercial 'visual artists and technicians' will probably need a broader vision and range of skills than just taking and PP photos. Both video and CGI are becoming ever more important. Personally, I believe that most photo's will eventually become 'video stills'. In terms of 'still photography', a video is equivalent to a series of 'burst shots'. I believe that at some stage most people will shoot and edit video, apply CGI where appropriate, and select the best videoframes as 'stills'.

 

I see (at least) two camps in this evolution. The first is the CGI technicians, some of whom may become true artists in at least their medium. The second is 'digital visual artists' who embrace CGI as one more technique (or not). When all's said and done, I personally believe that the 'creatives' (with or without CGI)

will always win out from the (CGI) technicians.

 

Again, thanks for posting this.. It's helped me clarify my thoughts on CGI.

 

Mike

 

No, not commercial images: commercial photography. Why would a client bother paying you to take a photo of a tub of yoghurt when they can pay someone else to create it with CGI? Photographers are expensive. 3D modellers aren't cheap, but they will be more efficient.

 

So - less need for cameras, lenses, flash guns, lights, filters, retouching, scanning, DOF bracketing, digital sensor artefacts, film artefacts... etc. In fact some things on that lists will disappear forever in commercial photography, such as RAW converters and retouching software. Though as you will see, cameras will be useful for certain applications.

 

Evidence:

 

(34:49)

 

(1:00)

 

(49:24)

 

The Numerous Questions Around The Rise Of CGI Models And Influencers

 

Start learning Blender, because it's going to be the only application you're going to need to know. The good news: it's open source and free, and starting to take market share from Maya. ::whistles::

 

So, what am I doing? I have done some commercial work. But I'm not a photographer that would shoot soft drinks or cars or things like that. But if I were, I'd already be heavily into Blender and giving some clients an option. In fact I have played with it, though that was a year ago.

 

You're welcome!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some types of CGI are already used in movies and TV. Either to visually create beings, objects and situations that would be otherwise impossible (or dangerous) to film in reality. Or because the cost of 'filming in reality', possibly using physical models, would be prohibitively high.

I think it can also be the creative urge to use the relatively new technology CGI offers filmmakers. I think there is a draw simply to working with the medium this way, not just to more practically substitute for 'real' situations or to save money. Many CGI-oriented films cost a lot more than traditional ones.

The first is the CGI technicians, some of whom may become true artists in at least their medium. The second is 'digital visual artists' who embrace CGI as one more technique (or not).

Regarding films, I think the artists and technicians aren't that separable, since they are often embodied in one person or group of people. And when the artists and technicians are more separate, they often work with each other well and are dependent on each other to get a final product that works.

  • Like 1

"You talkin' to me?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think some people don't like it when things move on more than once. Moving from film to digital: "This is so much better!" Moving from photography to CGI: "Traditional photography will never die!"

 

Some people don't like it if you point out, like Mike briefly mentioned, that photos will eventually be still frames taken from a constant stream. It's already kind of like that now - or rather, you can do that now with only a few compromises.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think some people don't like it when things move on more than once. Moving from film to digital: "This is so much better!" Moving from photography to CGI: "Traditional photography will never die!"

You may be mistaking not liking a certain attitude for not liking things changing. I have no problem with CGI or with people who want to make stills from videos. What I have a problem with are declarations of what will be dead in ten years. Digital evolves and grows even as film has remained usable and viable and, in some cases, even more cherished. I’m open to CGI as a contemporary medium. I’m less inclined, myself, to make still images from video yet don’t deny its appeal to some and the future it may have. Personal aesthetics and choice is more important to me than declarations about what the future holds. Someone trying to declare my creative future is annoying. New technology is not.

  • Like 1

"You talkin' to me?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CGI rendering is good enough now that sometimes it takes me a second look to tell whether an image is CGI or an actually photo.

 

With that said, I do a lot of what could be considered "product" photography, albeit mostly with antiques and the like-particularly antique watches both for sales and for cataloging for myself and other collectors. These are intricately detailed, and most of the time folks want to see 100+ years of "warts and all." There things that are important to collectors like how well a watch movement "sparkles" in your hand. A GOOD watch photographer(I'm a good one on most days, and maybe a bit above average on my better days or when I can get the lighting just right) can show you the issues. A GREAT photographer, which I constantly strive to be and every once in a great while get something approaching that, can replicate the look of you holding it in your hand. I don't see CGI replacing that skillset for every unique piece.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

True, though CGI has been used in movies in some form for almost 50 years. And you're right that 'CGI-minutes' are expensive. But for certain movie genres (action, science fiction, fantasy, history, etc.) audiences have come to expect 'spectacular or breathtaking scenes' that would not be possible or feasible without the help of CGI. Even is this means projecting actors in a 'green room' into a different location.

 

I agree that (as in photography) movie-making and CGI is a team effort. CGI artists and technicians need to work well together - and wit everyone else - to get reults that work in the movie as a whole.

.

I think it can also be the creative urge to use the relatively new technology CGI offers filmmakers. I think there is a draw simply to working with the medium this way, not just to more practically substitute for 'real' situations or to save money. Many CGI-oriented films cost a lot more than traditional ones.

 

Regarding films, I think the artists and technicians aren't that separable, since they are often embodied in one person or group of people. And when the artists and technicians are more separate, they often work with each other well and are dependent on each other to get a final product that works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, the movie was CGI, but my point is that moving picture may be the actual technology we eventually have. IMO, still photos exist because that's what we were able to make for so long. If video had come first, would anybody bother developing a still photo technology?
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If video had come first, would anybody bother developing a still photo technology?

Question we will never know the answer to. My guess is that, if video had come first, we might have hailed as a genius the first person to extract and frame a still image from it. The human creative urge is extremely diverse and versatile.

 

Another unanswerable question ... if color stills had come first, would anyone have bothered with black and white? My answer ... sure, but it might have taken a visionary like Picasso.

 

Artists aren’t slaves to their tools or mediums or anyone else’s givens and will likely always seek out what others find ‘unnecessary.’

  • Like 2

"You talkin' to me?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Getting a 90% approximation of reality is easy. We were doing that in the 1990's.

 

The next 9% is tough. It's taken 20-30 years to get past the uncanny valley.

 

The next 0.9% will be incredibly difficult, and won't be done with Blender, it will be done with AI driven algorithms.

 

That last 0.1% will be phenomenally difficult, and won't replace "breaking news" or "here we are at the scene" photographs, or that amazing catch in the endzone in the last 2 seconds of the game. That still image may be a single frame from an 8K video, but so far, most sports and wildlife photographers are swinging big glass on the front of a still camera.

 

Such pronouncements remind me of "Video Killed the Radio Star"-- which I hear on the radio (aka streaming audio service) far more often than I see online.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Same may go for actors someday. Computer created.

Not so fast! ...

 

“All the world's a stage,

And all the men and women merely players;

They have their exits and their entrances,

And one man in his time plays many parts,

His acts being seven ages. At first, the infant,

Mewling and puking in the nurse's arms.

Then the whining schoolboy, with his satchel

And shining morning face, creeping like snail

Unwillingly to school. And then the lover,

Sighing like furnace, with a woeful ballad

Made to his mistress' eyebrow. Then a soldier,

Full of strange oaths and bearded like the pard,

Jealous in honor, sudden and quick in quarrel,

Seeking the bubble reputation

Even in the cannon's mouth. And then the justice,

In fair round belly with good capon lined,

With eyes severe and beard of formal cut,

Full of wise saws and modern instances;

And so he plays his part. The sixth age shifts

Into the lean and slippered pantaloon,

With spectacles on nose and pouch on side;

His youthful hose, well saved, a world too wide

For his shrunk shank, and his big manly voice,

Turning again toward childish treble, pipes

And whistles in his sound. Last scene of all,

That ends this strange eventful history,

Is second childishness and mere oblivion,

Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything.”

 

―William Shakespeare, As You Like It

 

:)

  • Like 2

"You talkin' to me?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...