Commercial photography will be dead in ten years - prepare accordingly

[samstevens]

I reckon now, just at that time I was too immature to fully appreciate his good reason.

It’s hard to have perspective when you’re but a “whining schoolboy.” :)

[William Michael]

Haha!

. . . I don’t think that I really ever whined, but, in retrospect, I believe I was generally recalcitrant.

which, I expect uses exactly the same blinkers.

 

WW

[httpwww.photo.netbarry]

I'm skeptical Karim. There's more and more images being made at an increasing rate.. I only see that increasing not decreasing. Product, fashion, lifestyle photography, wedding photography have not been replaced by video though there's been plenty of time for that to be happening. They seem to exist side by side and aren't really at odds with each other, even in advertising dollars. It seems on many ad campaigns both get used and people will still seek photographers who know how to make an image that helps sell a product. But I guess time will tell.

[Ed_Ingold]

With regard to the news, I see a cottage industry emerging in the creation (and debunking) of CGI misinformation. The technology already exists wherein a person can seem to say things never spoken in reality, with perfect lip synchronization.

 

Distortion of reality is not something new, nor uncommon. Creation of reality is only a short step away. A long lens makes a gathering into a mob, a short lens disperses it. The lens and angle is used to emphasize automobile features in current fashion. Candy wrappers mysteriously disappear from my landscape photos. Except for professional ethics, continuous video clips can be edited without a visible glitch.

[Sandy Vongries]

Ten years, though I am in quite good health, the relevance of that time frame to my life is open to question. I do believe I'll put the issue on the short list of "things not to worry about"! ;)

[Karim Ghantous]

Product, fashion, lifestyle photography, wedding photography have not been replaced by video

And they never will. But stills cameras will be replaced by DSMC, that being digital stills & motion cameras. The still image is just as useful and effective as the moving one. 2D is just as useful as stereo - in fact, much more so (I don't have time to explain but stereo effectively only works up to a certain distance).

[Sandy Vongries]

Spray and pray - doesn't work in many venues. A fabulous photo captures a specific instant in time. Takes an eye and a hand. Otherwise every now and then, even a blind squirrel finds an acorn.

[Nick D.]

And they never will. But stills cameras will be replaced by DSMC, that being digital stills & motion cameras. The still image is just as useful and effective as the moving one. 2D is just as useful as stereo - in fact, much more so (I don't have time to explain but stereo effectively only works up to a certain distance).

Cameras been replaced and modified all the time, people still needed to shoot weddings, products and fashion. Very few great photographers were able to make living from selling their great personal work, some got fellowship, some been commissioned:)

[Karim Ghantous]

Spray and pray - doesn't work in many venues. A fabulous photo captures a specific instant in time. Takes an eye and a hand. Otherwise every now and then, even a blind squirrel finds an acorn.

That's what some film shooters say about that medium: it slows you down. But, we're only allowed a certain amount of progress, right? I mean, are digital cameras allowed to have ridiculously high ISO settings? Are they allowed to have high frame rates, large buffers, rich files, small size, etc.? What about AF? Is that allowed? Or is it only allowed in DSLRs but not in DSLMs, because there it becomes too reliable?

[httpwww.photo.netbarry]

And they never will. But stills cameras will be replaced by DSMC, that being digital stills & motion cameras. The still image is just as useful and effective as the moving one. 2D is just as useful as stereo - in fact, much more so (I don't have time to explain but stereo effectively only works up to a certain distance).

Well if the assumption of your 1st statement in you OP is unfounded, does the 2nd statement still follow? CGI will play a huge role, it already does but I don't see it as a zero sum situation.

[frans_waterlander]

But, we're only allowed a certain amount of progress, right? I mean, are digital cameras allowed to have ridiculously high ISO settings? Are they allowed to have high frame rates, large buffers, rich files, small size, etc.? What about AF? Is that allowed? Or is it only allowed in DSLRs but not in DSLMs, because there it becomes too reliable?

It seems to me, Karim, that you should go and develop and manufacture cameras that can do all that! After all, you wouldn't be limited by what others would tell you what would be allowed! Show the Nikons, Canons, Sonys, at al how pathetic they are.

[samstevens]

Well if the assumption of your 1st statement in you OP is unfounded

It is.

does the 2nd statement still follow?

No.

I don't see it as a zero sum situation.

Click bait often relies on zero sum games. The world of the most clicks is the world of hyperbole and black and white choice. No gray allowed.

[Karim Ghantous]

Well if the assumption of your 1st statement in you OP is unfounded, does the 2nd statement still follow? CGI will play a huge role, it already does but I don't see it as a zero sum situation.

My first statement was about how images are generated. My whole thesis is that CGI will be quicker and cheaper than photography for a lot of commercial applications. If you're taking photos, you will eventually be recording a constant stream of them as opposed to intermittent frames. To some degree, anyway. That's a separate concept.

 

It seems to me, Karim, that you should go and develop and manufacture cameras that can do all that! After all, you wouldn't be limited by what others would tell you what would be allowed! Show the Nikons, Canons, Sonys, at al how pathetic they are.

On the contrary. I'd say that the A9II is the best sports camera you can buy today - and that's before you take into account the new FE lenses to go with it. It's not the camera for me but it's the opposite of pathetic.

 

Even the Nikon D3 is used by some pros today - I'd say it's more advanced than the D1H or D2H, as you would expect. Wouldn't you say so?

[frans_waterlander]

On the contrary. I'd say that the A9II is the best sports camera you can buy today - and that's before you take into account the new FE lenses to go with it. It's not the camera for me but it's the opposite of pathetic.

My comments were in response to your remarks: " But, we're only allowed a certain amount of progress, right? I mean, are digital cameras allowed to have ridiculously high ISO settings? Are they allowed to have high frame rates, large buffers, rich files, small size, etc.? What about AF? Is that allowed? Or is it only allowed in DSLRs but not in DSLMs, because there it becomes too reliable?"

So, are you now doing a 180?

[Karim Ghantous]

So, are you now doing a 180?

Or maybe we misunderstood each other. No 180 here. I was pointing out the inconsistent way in which photographers see tech. "DSLRs? Wow. So much more efficient than film. Never going back." And that's fine - we all have our preferences. But then DSLMs come along and eventually surpass DSLRs in a similar way to how DSLRs surpassed 35mm. Better AF, sometimes completely silent, better features, smaller, faster, usually cheaper. But these same people aren't happy about that. It's not rational.

 

In other news, there is a lot of life left in practical effects after all:

 

Christopher Nolan and his crew blew up an actual Boeing 747 for 'Tenet' because it was 'more efficient' than CGI

[frans_waterlander]

usually cheaper

Really?

[mikemorrell]

I believe that there will always (or at least for some time to come) demand for 'still images' that somehow 'capture the moment' The best of these images become 'iconic' in that they come to represent (in one image) a historical period, a political or social situation or movement, etc.

 

i'm not sure whether 'stills' will continue to be shot in the future. Probably, at least by 'retro' photographers'. I'm 'pretty sure that many photographers will select their best vido stills. Possibly helped by AI,

[ilkka_nissila]

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?

 

For several reasons: first, to shoot high-resolution video, one needs a lot of capacity (processing and storage) that is not needed for stills. Secondly, you cannot use flash with video, and continuous lights are a lot less powerful, huge and make people squint. Third, editing high-resolutui video in search for a still image is extremely time-consuming. If the video is not raw and uncompressed, there is not as much correct subject detail, tones and colours as in a still image. Fourth, video forces viewers to spend a lot of time to find the information they are looking for, whereas this can be condensed in a single still image which quick to look at. Fifth, by having a still image, the viewer has more time to look at, evaluate and ponder the details and content of the image since it does not quickly pass by. Sixth, for good video you need a team to produce, or a whole factory of people if the goals are ambitious, whereas in still photography, everything is often done by one person.

[tomspielman]

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?

 

Still images go all the way back to cave drawings, - some dating back to around 13,000 BC. It's kind of like asking if people would still use knives and bows if the machine gun had come first.

 

Regardless, my answer is yes. And it's not just about nostalgia.

 

Knives and bows work better than a machine gun for some purposes. Similarly, I don't know that you'd want Harry Potter style moving images on top of the Sistine Chapel. It would be more than a little distracting and probably really creepy.

 

A still image conveys something that a moving one does not, - and the reverse is true too of course.

 

The desire to be able to stop or freeze a video/movie to look at a single frame so you can really see what's there has existed as long as moving images have.

Edited June 11, 2020 by tomspielman

[samstevens]

if the machine gun had come first

... we might just not be here at all!

[William Michael]

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

 

Arguably video did come first.

 

Arguably Humans see and process in 'video mode'.

 

I think it would be a reasonable premise on which to base an arguement that it was the passion to record and preserve a moment or concept within that video or stimulated by that video, as a "still", be that a painting, a sculpture... or a photograph.

 

WW

[movingfinger]

The original OP posting need not be restricted to "commercial photography" and a technology as labor intensive as blender. There was a somewhat similar and lengthy discussion here on photo.net back in 2017 that I started based on a Google AI blog posting about using Deep Learning to create professional level photographs. You can find that discussion and a link to the Google Blog article here: Machine Learning Creates...

 

The google blog article, from Jul 2017 is already somewhat dated. If you simply google "AI makes fine art photography" now you'll get hundreds of hits with more recent dates.

 

Speculating on the future, such technology is not at all to my liking. While such 'photography' (alleged photography?) and 'art', may fit into a post-COVID world where humans prefer to 'self-isolate' and fear to travel with their cameras to capture this amazing world but can instead create virtual images to hang on the walls of their isolated cells such a science fiction existence is not for me - but then my time here is growing short.

[httpwww.photo.netbarry]

For several reasons: first, to shoot high-resolution video, one needs a lot of a lot less powerful, huge and make people squint. Third, editing high-resolutui video in search for a still image is extremely time-consuming. If the video is not raw and uncompressed, there is not as much correct subject detail, tones and colours as in a still image. Fourth, video forces viewers to spend a lot of time to find the information they are looking for, whereas this can be condensed in a single still image which quick to look at. Fifth, by having a still image, the viewer has more time to look at, evaluate and ponder the details and content of the image since it does not quickly pass by. Sixth, for good video you need a team to produce, or a whole factory of people if the goals are ambitious, whereas in still photography, everything is often done by one person.

All good reasons. Though on a professional photoshoot, there sometimes can be a team. Especially if you count make-up people, wardrobe, maybe the editorial team, often an assistant or two to set-up and move lights, reflectors etc. The reasons you cited also apply to CGI in some respects. I don't think CGI is less expensive to produce than a professional photo.

[rodeo_joe1]

Hmm! 2 or 3 hours in blender to get a basic shape and then match the product colour.... or 5 minutes on a product table plus 1/250th of a second exposing the sensor. Now which is more cost effective?

[Karim Ghantous]

Arguably video did come first.

 

Arguably Humans see and process in 'video mode'.

I never thought about it like that!

 

Hmm! 2 or 3 hours in blender to get a basic shape and then match the product colour.... or 5 minutes on a product table plus 1/250th of a second exposing the sensor. Now which is more cost effective?

For you? Or for your client? There's more to it than what you're presenting - although your point is still valid.