The Future of Photography

[jenkins]

<p>I am asking this as an open question, i am a beginner, not a professional, but do you think there will come a point where software for the masses will close the gap on the professional hacks?<br>

I see a lot of programmes that make the final result look easy, that's why i ask this question.</p>

 

[dave_s]

<p>No offense, but it's sort of a dopey question. I don't know what you mean by professional 'hacks', but the term insults the working professional photographers who frequent this site. Some professionals are thoughtful creative photographers (nearly all, in my experience) but there are no doubt some to whom it's just a job.</p>

<p>No software is ever going to make me, or you, into Minor White, if that's what you're asking. I don't need to explain why, do I? </p>

[leo_papandreou1]

<p>Someone has to imagine the picture first. After that it's just technique. which by iteself does not even warrant a footnote in history books. Software lacks the faculty to mean. Photos are supposed to mean something.</p>

[bobcossar]

<p>I like Leo and Daves answers.....I've been a working pro all my working life. And I am no "hack" as you so quaintly put it. </p>

[guendanadxi]

<p>I dont think so, I see two reasons for this:<br>

1. Marketing! Companies will continue selling equipment intended to different "niches" <br>

2. Cost... Cutting edge technology cost more and not everyone can/want to pay more for this extras if they dont need them</p>

<p>Anyway, just consider that whatever your equipment is, with all probability is better than any equipment available to professionals 5, 10 years ago... Your most important upgrade will be on the way you take pictures, in the way you see, understand and capture light...</p>

<p>On digital, software is akin to the darkroom, so its also important as you develop your own workflow. But the infamous phrase "junk in, junk out" its still valid. At some point you will have to decide where do you want to spend more time, behind a computer or behind the camera. I aim for the 2nd option, but its a matter of what do you enjoy. :)<br>

Cheers,<br>

Luis</p>

[brucecahn]

<p>Tell us what you really think of us.</p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>No. The oil paints (and also cameras and the whole run of photographic technology) we have today are much, much better than the paint Rembrandt had to work with.</p>

<p>Group photos are taken every day. Only a tiny fraction of them would even come close to using a small portion of the posing and positioning techniques master painters used with much lower technology. Those masters cared about how people were depicted in their illustrations. Often fantastic, to be sure, but look at their use of models, and look at how most people snap a photo of their friends.</p>

<p>The body positions, locations in the frame (view), and simple color of fabric and wearing of clothing, of people in a master painter's picture, by themselves, often tell more than half of the story. What, if any, story is going to be told by a green square "Program" setting? </p>

<p>Do we ever position the human form of the people we care about, to photograph them with a high-tech camera, with even a moment of forethought we would use if we were scribbling their image with a two-cent lump of charcoal dirt by hand?</p>

<p>Unless someone invents software with "Tacky Detection Technology", the masses of us will still just slug and sloth our way through illustration with a camera. The software can help; but until someone teaches a computer to exercise judgement, there will remain a distinct human input; hopefully, once every so often, it will be the contribution of a Master or a Mistress or a Muse of the Arts.</p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>Don't get me too wrong. Some portraitists and fashion photographers, well, any photographer of people, may be achieving strong, timeless depictions of people. But, they're in the overall minority. Meanwhile, the majority of us have the same (or better) technology, and we still do a poor job. </p>

<p>I don't think a new Auto-Design Icon on the dial is going to cut it with closing that gap.</p>

[cornell_tramontana]

<p>I do photography as a hobby, not as a profession; but, even I find the question to be quite insulting. Your question reminds me of people who when shown a memorable photo, remark that the photographer must have a very good camera -- as if the tools are all that is needed to result in a good photo.<br>

You say that you're a beginner. Perhaps, as you become more involved in photography, you will see how far off the mark your question is.</p>

<p>Cornell</p>

[will_daniel1]

<p>Some things never change. The same question was asked a quarter century ago when the mass photo market changed from Instamatic and Polaroid cameras to 35mm. "Everyone can take great photos now; why do we need pros?" Pros didn't go away then, and they won't now. We will always need professional photographers, no matter how easy photography becomes for the consumer.</p>

<p>Will</p>

[elliot1]

<p>I find the 'masses' are concerned with capturing a memory and are indifferent to the image quality and composition - they just don't care. Pros don't cater to the masses. As Wil says, there will always be a need for pros who are appreciated and needed by a select group of the total photography market.</p>

[iliafarniev]

<h4>One simple way to answer is there is no border in creative photograpy to close, really. The pros actually do belong to masses just as much as masses themselves do while there are sophisticated non-pros who are not nesesserily earn mega$$£ on their pictures.</h4>

[jenkins]

<p>I think we have a different meaning for the word hack, i meant it in a completely different way to what it is being conceived, i could not have any more respect for this profession if i tried.<br>

Cornell you seem to be able to read a lot into a person because of one word, maybe you should think about that.<br>

I ask the 'Dopey' question Dave for a very specific reason, Photoshop can be a very daunting prospect at the beginning, i went to a friends house that had a new bells and whistles software programme, that had some very good applications and was far quicker at achieving the end results than i would have using PS.<br>

That made me think i wonder what the future might hold on the post production side of Photography, will it become so automated and user friendly that a lot of the hands on skills in photographic treatments will be made a lot easier.<br>

This was a floating question, not 'A' specific, more aimed at post production not Photographic Concepts or Photographers.<br>

Looking back at my original question it was badly worded, i had a few beers :)</p>

 

[KenPapai]

<p>I tink Simon cameras will be obsolete. Good post processing software of the future will take one single photo and morph it into anything you can imagine. Why take photos then when the software is really in control? Hack away at my logic...</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>I'm sure there is no limit to what will eventually be achieved. I'm sure there will come a day (probably not in my lifetime) that the postprocessing of an image can be relegated to artificial intelligence, with certain objectives and feedback being offered by the photographer. Whether there is any sort of "creative eye" anywhere in the mix is perhaps another matter.</p>

[lovcom_photo]

<p>Software can never compose a picture with intent, and inspiration. Software follows instructions, but cannot conceive. Software are tools. Tools neve think; they follow instructions.</p>

<p>Only humans can do that. Although even humans fall into one of two categories: (1) camera operators and gearheads, and (2) artists.</p>

[carl_jabido]

<p>Post production? Of course it will be made easier. It's been getting easier for the past century.</p>

<p>I for one would like a camera that has a Diane Arbus icon on the dial: puts toy grenades into everyone's hands. The Cartier-Bresson mode re-images a person jumping over a puddle. The Maplethorpe icon strips men down and shoots in black and white. But even then, a human will still be the one making the choice as to which icon to select, and the resulting message that it creates.</p>

<p>On a more realistic note, I can even imagine a system that takes an ultra wide view at say 40mp and then software magically determines the most interesting compositions based on a variety of algorithms, say geometry, color contrast, b&w contrast, etc. then crops it down. Will it make interesting photos? Sure, probably would turn out a few every now and then but as someone else said, it's just following instructions.</p>

<p>Off to go patent that idea now...</p>

[jenkins]

<p>Lol Carl<br>

My thread i want a cut of that patent $$$$<br>

That's the sort of angel i was coming from, it will be interesting to see what comes out in the future.</p>

[patrick j dempsey]

<p>At some point in the future...</p>

<p>There will be cameras that don't take a photograph with a lens... instead, they map out a scene using a combination of radar and passive x-rays to generate a 3-dimensional map of the scene. The scene will be rendered in 3D allowing the "photographer" to choose "lighting", "coloring", and "viewpoint" from a menu driven system. Famous photographers and cinematographers styles will be carefully analyzed and reduced to a vague and probably insulting set of descriptors which will then allow the "photographer" to simulate the style of any artist he wishes within seconds. Since the computer will be programed to create compositions based on established "standards" and "rules" it will do so flawlessly and mechanically without any human hesitation. These virtual scenes will be streamed live to Photo.net where their "RAW" data can be manipulated by others in other styles freely creating an entire world-wide community of pixel-pushers calling themselves "photographers". At this point, the people shooting on glass and sensor digital cameras will cry out about how it's not REAL photography because there is no lens and no sensor, and the pinhole/film photographers will cry out that the digital camera photographers are being biased, and a few of us will just sit around and wonder what any of this has to do with cleaning out the viewfinder of an Argus C3.</p>

[paul_de_ley]

<p>I have no idea what's going to happen but I suspect it will become harder and harder to distinguish pros and amateurs based on any other criteria than the one whether they actually make a living out of their photography.</p>

<p>For example, another aspect of the possibilities similar to Carl's patent could involve increasing convergence between high def video and high Mpx still photography. Imagine a camera that automatically (and in just a few seconds or so) takes a series of shots with all different combinations of Ev, aperture, zoom and focus settings supported by the lens that happens to be on the body, and stores the results as a single (Gb-sized and exif-annotated) mpeg as well as a complete series of the individual raws or jpegs. The mpeg would store the complete set as a single file and thus keep the entire dataset intact in its totality for archival purposes.</p>

<p>Then a number of "best solutions" could be generated by the in-camera software and/or automated post-processing software on your PC, including for example a few hyperfocal composites, HDR composites, uprezzed poster-sized shots, emulsion grain simulations, etc etc., leaving you to pick (or further tweak) your favorites among a dozen or so different best-effort results suggested by the camera/computer.</p>

<p>More people would end up with individual photographs that look very professional as far as the technology goes, but (just like right now) most of us would not have the industry contacts plus business & salesmanship knowledge to convert those pro-like shots into actual steady income. Also, convergent technology seems to go hand in hand with an increasing demand for multiformatted "packages" consisting not just of a portfolio of stills but including video, sound and whatever else can be generated /captured in a give setting along with those stills. So the pros might transition from making a living out of selling individual shots to becoming true multimedia artists/specialists and selling packages of HD video footage, stills, sound, interviews etc recorded at a given location or doing a given event.</p>

[wpahnelas]

<p>it depends on whether you think <em>photograph</em> as a noun or a verb.</p>

[carl_jabido]

<p>Whenever the topic of whether technology will replace or rather displace professional photographers, I like to refer to <a href="http://davidalanharvey.typepad.com/road_trip/2007/04/moving_on.html">this post by David Alan Harvey</a>, the most important quote being:</p>

 

<blockquote>any well educated person can write a grammatically correct sentence, yet few can compose a poem that resonates or write a compelling short story or novel</blockquote>

<p>Photography displaced representational art work and art moved on to Picasso and Pollock. Icons have replaced actual dodging and burning and some of Man Ray's <strong>effects</strong> could be reduced to a Photoshop plugin. Technology will make certain things easier, but authorship will always be a human quality.</p>

 

[jenkins]

<p>Very nicely put Carl, i like you quote too, how true that is.</p>

[Mary Doo]

<p>Post processing will be easier for sure toward supporting the photographer's "eye". But it will not "close the gap" because the good photogapher retains his special identity, technical know-how, and vision. </p>

<p>That's is why two photographers standing side by side to each other shooting at the same subject can produce images that look quite different from each other's.</p>

<p>Some people put too much credance in computer programs. Computers do not really "think". Literally a computer program is nothing but a bunch of if-then-else codes of logical conditional paths and sequences designed and written by a thinking human or a team of thinking humans. When one executes a program, the commands are followed by the computer based the pre-defined conditions known or predicted by the programmer(s). So far, no robot, with all the logical. fuzzy" if-then-else codes, and knowledge-based inferences written into it, can replicate the intricate human mind to any meaningful degree. As exemplified by the famous "Turing Test", once the questions were out of bounds, the "reasoning" robot was befuddled. </p>

<p>Does one understand and remember one's thoughts completely from one moment to the next? If not, how does one put all these conditional if-then-else thoughts of all photographic creativities by all photographers into computer codes?</p>

<p>Mary</p>

<p> </p>