Reading mode: Light Dark

Slow Death of Photography?

Go to last post
Carl Maiorino said:
An image where the photographer totally lacks any vision for light
and composition sticks out like a sore thumb. No camera and/or
computer can do that for you. Check out
this month's cover of Digital Photo Pro by Jill Greenberg. Do you
think any computer can replace her vision and her talent (she is
amazing, by the way!!!).
Click to expand...
Teach the camera-bot that interesting images often occur when the runner approaches home plate. Add in all the bits about catcher position, ball presence, aperture, focus, etc. Ol' camera-bot will spit them right out.
Carl Maiorino said:
The creative process of the human
mind will never be matched or replaced by a computer.
Click to expand...
"Never" is a very dangerous word. It can eventually rise up and bite you right in the butt.
Carl Maiorino said:
Click to expand...
--
bob

The Blind Pig Guild
A photo/travel club looking for members
http://www.jeber.com/Clubs/Blind-Pig/

Flowers of Asia
A photo club for appreciators of Asian flowers - looking for members
http://www.jeber.com/Clubs/Flowers-of--Asia/

Travel Galleries
http://www.pbase.com/bobtrips
 
Petteri Sulonen said:
People who take snapshots for the family album (paper or
electronic) will be able to take better snapshots. People who
pursue photography for its own sake will be able to find creative
ways to explore the new territory opened up by technology. And if
you like it, it's not like Leica M3's suddenly disintegrated.
Click to expand...
...and raise an excellent point: "...it's not like the Leica M3's suddenly disentegrated." Just as photography did not replace painting, sketching, and etching, but rather has simply become far more popular, digital photography and photoshop will simply become dominant over film photography, which will probably remain forever as its own unique artform.

--
--joe

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/

Please feel free to criticize, make suggestions, and edit my photos. If you wish to use any of my photos for any purpose other than editing in these forums, please ask.
 
BobTrips said:
Yep.

Just like power steering, ABS brakes, automatic transmissions, and
electric starters killed driving.
Click to expand...
This is not what the OP was talking about at all. A better analogy would be a car with an electronic windshield that displayed a completely fictional view of the traffic and environment surrounding the vehicle. While it would be comforting to look out over the hood of the car and see sunny skies and no traffic, it could lead to disaster if you were actually driving in a rainstorm during rush hour.

Or has everyone forgotten the L.A. Times photographer who photoshopped an aggressive-looking U.S. soldier into a photo of an Iraqi man and his grandchild, showing a confrontation which never existed? Although Picasso famously said art is a lie that tells a truth, I'm not sure this is what he meant.
 
Hennie de Ruyter said:
Even if the only thing remaining for the photographer to do would
be composition of the image, s/he would still require skill and a
'good eye' and therefore it would remain an art.
Click to expand...
Who's to say that even the composition of the image would still be up to a person? I find it slightly ironic that you use 'compositional rules' as the subject... A computer can be programmed to recognise certain elements and apply compositional rules, although it may arguably never function as a sentient artist. The advances in such technology will only propel real artists further forward, though.
 
Yes I did :)

Typo. Ever made one? Can you spot the difference between a typo and an incorrect spelling?

--

'Silence! What is all this insolence? You will find yourself in gladiator school vewy quickly with wotten behaviour like that.'
 
Wayne Larmon said:
Joseph S. Wisniewski said:
.... Submission is
easier, amateurs and newbies who wouldn't have thought of selling
for stock 10 years ago are uploading their little hearts out.
Click to expand...
While not contesting the points you made, isn't this last thought
similar to the point I made? That the threshold of competence that
is needed to produce halfway decent images is much lower now. The
existence of a different distribution model does not negate this
point.
Click to expand...
I don't think one can surmise anything about the 'threshold of competence' by the number of photographers now selling their goods.

It could well be that those people were just as competent as before the distribution system changed. The previous distribution system might have been so cumbersome that they didn't bother submitting their otherwise excellent work.

Especially in the days where it meant giving up your only good copy, your film original.

--
bob

The Blind Pig Guild
A photo/travel club looking for members
http://www.jeber.com/Clubs/Blind-Pig/

Flowers of Asia
A photo club for appreciators of Asian flowers - looking for members
http://www.jeber.com/Clubs/Flowers-of--Asia/

Travel Galleries
http://www.pbase.com/bobtrips
 
All the technology in the world will NEVER replace the power of the human mind...no camera ifs, ands, or bots will ever do that...

--
'I'd knock on wood for good luck, but it just gives me a headache!!!'
 
Paul H said:
BobTrips said:
Yep.

Just like power steering, ABS brakes, automatic transmissions, and
electric starters killed driving.
Click to expand...
This is not what the OP was talking about at all. A better
analogy would be a car with an electronic windshield that displayed
a completely fictional view of the traffic and environment
surrounding the vehicle. While it would be comforting to look out
over the hood of the car and see sunny skies and no traffic, it
could lead to disaster if you were actually driving in a rainstorm
during rush hour.
Click to expand...
I took the OP's post as saying that those things that made photography easier were killing photography.

The things I listed certainly made driving easier. (Ever hand-crank a flivver?) None of those things killed driving. Just made it easier, and different.
Paul H46473 said:
Or has everyone forgotten the L.A. Times photographer who
photoshopped an aggressive-looking U.S. soldier into a photo of an
Iraqi man and his grandchild, showing a confrontation which never
existed? Although Picasso famously said art is a lie that tells a
truth, I'm not sure this is what he meant.
Click to expand...
Would that be sort of like how the raising of the flag over Iwo Jima was staged? Or the shot of MacArthur returning?

Those pictures were only 'semi-real'. They probably would have been easier to do with Photoshop.

(Yeah. My examples are a little different in that those events happened and then recreated. Just the best I could grab at the moment. ;o)

--
bob

The Blind Pig Guild
A photo/travel club looking for members
http://www.jeber.com/Clubs/Blind-Pig/

Flowers of Asia
A photo club for appreciators of Asian flowers - looking for members
http://www.jeber.com/Clubs/Flowers-of--Asia/

Travel Galleries
http://www.pbase.com/bobtrips
 
Carl Maiorino said:
All the technology in the world will NEVER replace the power of the
human mind...no camera ifs, ands, or bots will ever do that...
Click to expand...
Tell you what. I'll bet you a billion dollars that it will. I believe in the power of "never".

I'll hold the cash while we wait. Send your part to Bob Wallace, 3322.........

;o)

--
bob

The Blind Pig Guild
A photo/travel club looking for members
http://www.jeber.com/Clubs/Blind-Pig/

Flowers of Asia
A photo club for appreciators of Asian flowers - looking for members
http://www.jeber.com/Clubs/Flowers-of--Asia/

Travel Galleries
http://www.pbase.com/bobtrips
 
joe mama said:
...and raise an excellent point: "...it's not like the Leica M3's
suddenly disentegrated." Just as photography did not replace
painting, sketching, and etching, but rather has simply become far
more popular, digital photography and photoshop will simply become
dominant over film photography, which will probably remain forever
as its own unique artform.
Click to expand...
Photography did indeed replace painting, sketching, and etching. Before photography all protraits, landscapes etc were done that way. An artist in those days was a skilled reproducer of real world scenes for posterity in those mediums. Only those who could most accurately reproduce were in demand by the rich clients who would commision such works. An artist was an earnest craftsman, a tradesman doing an everyday job in a similar vain to a studio photographer today does.

It is only since the advent of popular photography that the profession of "artist" has ceased to exist. Now "art" is a lost and wayward entity, with no definition and no standards.

Art has become an utter irrelevance since it has become fashionable by the chattering classes to accept ordinary everyday objects from unmade beds to used samitary towels as art it is arguable that the term art now has no boundary and is thus meaningless. Everything is art and nothing is art. An artist is these days not skilled (necessarily) does not produce work of any identifiable standard of craftsmanship. Instead he/she aims to gain notoriety through shocking and grabbing headlines. Anyone who dares critisize the "work" is pilloried as not being "intelligent enough" or whatever.

It's the emporers clothes all over again.

If you think that photography didn't replace the work of artists then I'd like to compare how many contemporary portraits hanging on walls these days are photographs compared to 100 years ago.

--

'Silence! What is all this insolence? You will find yourself in gladiator school vewy quickly with wotten behaviour like that.'
 
BobTrips said:
Carl Maiorino said:
An image where the photographer totally lacks any vision for light
and composition sticks out like a sore thumb. No camera and/or
computer can do that for you. Check out
this month's cover of Digital Photo Pro by Jill Greenberg. Do you
think any computer can replace her vision and her talent (she is
amazing, by the way!!!).
Click to expand...
Teach the camera-bot that interesting images often occur when the
runner approaches home plate. Add in all the bits about catcher
position, ball presence, aperture, focus, etc. Ol' camera-bot will
spit them right out.
Member said:
The creative process of the human
mind will never be matched or replaced by a computer.
Click to expand...
"Never" is a very dangerous word. It can eventually rise up and
bite you right in the butt.
Click to expand...
Or even rise up and grab you by the gonads?? These two are having fun playing their ball game aren't they?
Member said:
Member said:
Click to expand...
--
bob

The Blind Pig Guild
A photo/travel club looking for members
http://www.jeber.com/Clubs/Blind-Pig/

Flowers of Asia
A photo club for appreciators of Asian flowers - looking for members
http://www.jeber.com/Clubs/Flowers-of--Asia/

Travel Galleries
http://www.pbase.com/bobtrips
Click to expand...
--

'Silence! What is all this insolence? You will find yourself in gladiator school vewy quickly with wotten behaviour like that.'
 
krusadr said:
Yes I did :)
Click to expand...
That sentence lacks punctuation.
krusadr said:
Typo.
Click to expand...
That is a sentence fragment.
krusadr said:
Ever made one?
Click to expand...
That is another sentence fragment.
krusadr said:
Can you spot the difference between a typo and
an incorrect spelling?
Click to expand...
That is awkward; it reads easier as "a spelling error".

I found the construction of your original sentence to be very cumbersome.

"Do you think that taking pictures is as dumbed down as flying as airliner these days?"

You have used "think" when you meant "believe", "that" is redundant, "dumbed down" is too colloquial, and "these days" is also redundant. The redundant "these days" distracts from a much stronger ending at "airliner".

"Do you believe photography has been oversimplified, like flying a modern aircraft?"

--
The Pistons led the NBA, and lost in the playoffs.
The Red Wings led the NHL, and lost in the playoffs.

It's up to the Tigers now...
Leading the league, and going all the way!

Ciao!

Joe

http://www.swissarmyfork.com
 
Carl Maiorino said:
All the technology in the world will NEVER replace the power of the
human mind...no camera ifs, ands, or bots will ever do that...
Click to expand...
That may or may not be true... but I bet computers will learn to take great photos. That doesn't mean they'll replace the power of the human mind... the human mind will, I hope, continue to be propelled on to greater things, though. Has photography itself, with the ability to atain realistic representations of scenes without the need to painstakingly render them manually, not partly lead to a whole re-imagination of what constitutes visual art, and a great broadening of the scope of our aesthetic endeavours as a race?

As Bob says, you could teach a computer a little about baseball and photography and it would catch an image like that given the chance... that doesn't mean there'll be no more scope for ideosynchracy and artistry. If we never challenge ourselves, how can we grow?
 
ptodd said:
Well, those are precisely the kinds of thing that they're just
beginning to try now... cameras that wait until the subject is
smiling, with eyes open, etc...
Click to expand...
The new European search engine, in development, will let you supply an image to search on ( instead of text keywords ), and it will find images with the same shapes and colors. It will even be able to search video this way; the police have been doing it forever.

It's fascinating, some of the newer developments that are coming to light.
 
Forrest said:
Forrest41926 said:
Well, those are precisely the kinds of thing that they're just
beginning to try now... cameras that wait until the subject is
smiling, with eyes open, etc...
Click to expand...
The new European search engine, in development, will let you supply
an image to search on ( instead of text keywords ), and it will
find images with the same shapes and colors. It will even be able
to search video this way; the police have been doing it forever.

It's fascinating, some of the newer developments that are coming to
light.
Click to expand...
Interesting.... I heard about an open source project trying to do something similar; you draw a little picture and it tries to find matching images. There's a photo-database program called MyAlbum with a 'find similar images' feature that I think must be some kind of joke - the results it comes up with are so totally unrelated that it's really hard to imagine why they put that feature into a publically released programme...

I've heard about similar works-in-progress for audio, too. The Goldsmith's Computing Department have some interesting things going on...

http://www.doc.gold.ac.uk/
 
For some reason, it won't let me post the reply. No foul language, and it doesn't exceed the max size, so I don't know what's up. Just a "Page cannot be displayed error" over and over.

Anyway, here's a link to the reply:

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/reply.htm

--
--joe

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/

Please feel free to criticize, make suggestions, and edit my photos. If you wish to use any of my photos for any purpose other than editing in these forums, please ask.
 
What do I think?

Here's the short answer. You don't understand the first thing about photography.

I had a boss who thought that just pointing a camera at a great subject made a great photograph. Most of the time his photos stunk. But every once in a while he got lucky and actually pointed the camera at an interesting subject. But most of his photos were dismal failtures because he never understood how little a difference what you're talking about makes in producing great photos.

Getting it in focus, and the right exposure, and holding it steady are about 5 percent of making great photos. The rest is knowing what YOU want to have in the photo, and what to leave out. No computer will EVER be able to do that.

Sorry to be harsh, but them's the facts.
coreyh said:
I can't help but think that as the user of my cameras I am slowly
become less and less of a requirement to take nice pictures. You
can coax a lot more out of your equipment by knowing how to play
with iso, aperature and shutter speed but the automatic settings
are becoming more and more user friendly to the point where all I
have to do is press a button. More times than not, I will get a
good picture of my subject(s).

Are we not on a slow progression to the point where these computers
inside the camera will be able to compute exactly what kind of
settings are required for the most optimal shot. Right now, they
are pretty good at doing that, but imagine in 10-20 years? I doubt
there will be many cameras not able to capture a great picture just
by using automatic settings 100% of the time. In fact, you will
likely be better off using automatic as it will know better than
you what settings it should use. What will be the point of manual
settings besides to capture an unrealistic image of your subject.

I'm starting to see people deviate from real photos to the world of
photoshop. Nowadays, myself included, anyone can take a descent
picture. What sets people apart are composition and their ability
to use photoshop to create an image unlike the original.

There will always be better photgraphers, but that gap is narrowing
very quickly. Photoshop on the other hand. Not many people know
how to use that program well because of it's steep learning curve.
More so than that of digital cameras anyways. (the expense not
taken into consideration)

This is just my opinion and would like to discuss it. I don't
claim I am right, but it is kind of scary that the art of
photography is on a decline to a certain extent to be replaced by
photoshopped images.

Let me know what you guys think.
Click to expand...
--
Eric

Ernest Hemingway's writing reminds me of the farting of an old horse. - E.B. White
 
I wonder about who is lining up on each side of this discussion as to whether technology might someday take over the creative aspect of photography.

My initial guess is that the folks with computer backgrounds, especially if they've dabbled in AI, are on the 'yes' side. The photographers with limited computer backgrounds on the 'no'.

Then I wonder if the more computer savvy are correct because they better understand how machines are likely to evolve.

Or if the photographers are correct because they know something about the creative process that the computer folks don't know.

(I'm coming from neither background, so I'm making my bets based on knowing something about how creativity is learned. ;o)

--
bob

The Blind Pig Guild
A photo/travel club looking for members
http://www.jeber.com/Clubs/Blind-Pig/

Flowers of Asia
A photo club for appreciators of Asian flowers - looking for members
http://www.jeber.com/Clubs/Flowers-of--Asia/

Travel Galleries
http://www.pbase.com/bobtrips
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top