"Photographers: you’re being replaced by software"

[imagemaker46]

So what you're saying is that I will still be hired to shoot an athlete for an ad instead of someone creating a virtual image on a computer, or that anyone that does product photography will still be hired instead of a computer generated image being used. If I read the article correctly, the images can be created from nothing but a computer and software, how does this not impact photographers? Advertising agencies have been using photographs of professional athletes for years, and they have always hired photographers to shoot them, now, with the use of software they don't have to hire a photographer, just a computer tech and software, it will create work for the graphic industry. Why pay a professional athlete millions when they can create an athlete for a few hundred dollars, afterall, clients don't care where the picture came from.

The photojournalists, wedding and real time photographers won't be affected as much, but they will still be affected.

Can I assume that you are a professional photographer?

 

[Josh66]

LOL! Do you really think that they pay professional athletes millions of dollars for a photo-shoot?

OR that somebody would take a mere 'few hundred' to model and render the scene?!

 

[12sndsgood]

I would think in that type of ad you would still have the photographer, companies pay an athelete millions because they want there name and image and picture on there product, you'd lose out on the generic ads. I have been seeing allot more photographers/graphic artists coming out. they are learning both sides of the field. I would think it could possibly cut into business of certain photography areas but this isn't something new to an industry, things like this happen in every industry out there really.

 

[Fred Berg]

When digital cameras first hit the shops, the images were very pixely and most serious photographers wouldn't have touched one with a barge pole. Nowadays, unless you are a film enthusiast or need the extra mile a medium or large format film can deliver, who uses analogue?

These things start slowly but then tend to snowball in a hurry....

I don't see how this has anything to do with what was actually written in the article. Did you READ the article?

Yes, of course I read the article. Why do you assume otherwise? My point is that as digital has steadily taken over in photography, film has become increasingly expensive and the equipment (cameras and certain types of film) has been and/or is starting to be discontinued. As more and more people (the Facebook generation in particular) take up this new way of producing the images they want/need, the demand for digital photographic equipment will wane much the same way it has for analogue. So Nikon, Canon, Pentax, et al, will face the same or similar challenges that Kodak, Ilford and Agfa (to name but a few) are facing today. If this takes off big time, all photography could find itself struggling to find a fingerhold in a dwindling market - analogue and digital alike.

 

[Buckster]

So what you're saying is that I will still be hired to shoot an athlete for an ad instead of someone creating a virtual image on a computer

Yes, at least for the athlete, assuming we're talking about a real, known athlete. The stadium or other background may well be virtual, and composited in, but the real person will still need to be photographed.

or that anyone that does product photography will still be hired instead of a computer generated image being used.

Are you unable to read what I wrote?

If I read the article correctly, the images can be created from nothing but a computer and software, how does this not impact photographers? Advertising agencies have been using photographs of professional athletes for years, and they have always hired photographers to shoot them, now, with the use of software they don't have to hire a photographer, just a computer tech and software, it will create work for the graphic industry. Why pay a professional athlete millions when they can create an athlete for a few hundred dollars, afterall, clients don't care where the picture came from.

Again (for what, the 5th time?), for VIRTUAL people and environments, 3D rendering programs will work fine. For REAL people, it WON'T.

What part of that is difficult for you to grasp? Perhaps it can be explained better until you do.

The photojournalists, wedding and real time photographers won't be affected as much, but they will still be affected.

How? In what way, SPECIFICALLY? Spell it out for me.

Can I assume that you are a professional photographer?

No, you cannot assume anything.

 

[Josh66]

They might use 3D modeling to add stuff into (or create entirely) the background or something like that, but like Buckster was saying - they still have to start with an actual picture of the guy.

Unless it's just some generic athlete, and it doesn't have to actually look like a real person.

 

[imagemaker46]

LOL! Do you really think that they pay professional athletes millions of dollars for a photo-shoot?

OR that somebody would take a mere 'few hundred' to model and render the scene?!

Not just the photoshoot, the rights to use their face to advertise their product. Do you think that Michael Jordan wasn't being paid millions? Being as his net worth right now as a retired basketball player is $500 million.

 

[Buckster]

When digital cameras first hit the shops, the images were very pixely and most serious photographers wouldn't have touched one with a barge pole. Nowadays, unless you are a film enthusiast or need the extra mile a medium or large format film can deliver, who uses analogue?

These things start slowly but then tend to snowball in a hurry....

I don't see how this has anything to do with what was actually written in the article. Did you READ the article?

Yes, of course I read the article. Why do you assume otherwise?

Because what you're writing makes no sense in context with the article.

My point is that as digital has steadily taken over in photography, film has become increasingly expensive and the equipment (cameras and certain types of film) has been and/or is starting to be discontinued. As more and more people (the Facebook generation in particular) take up this new way of producing the images they want/need,

Let's take a break right here for a moment. What the "Facebook generation" wants/needs is the same as the previous generations: Images of their own real faces and weddings and graduations and so on - they CAN'T GET THAT from CG - it's not practical.

the demand for digital photographic equipment will wane much the same way it has for analogue.

That's ridiculous, especially in context with what the article is really about.

So Nikon, Canon, Pentax, et al, will face the same or similar challenges that Kodak, Ilford and Agfa (to name but a few) are facing today. If this takes off big time, all photography could find itself struggling to find a fingerhold in a dwindling market - analogue and digital alike.

What you're saying here still makes no sense in context with what this article is about: The death of product and fantasy landscape photography in favor of product and fantasy landscape rendering via CG.

You're off in a whole different direction from that.

And you're still missing the point about what CG cannot do: It cannot conjure up images of real-life people interacting with real life situation, like weddings, grads, portraits, sports, news, etc.

 

[imagemaker46]

I had already figured out that you weren't making your living as a photographer, not that it matters, we all have opinions.

 

[Derrel]

My human form was replaced almost two years ago by my new Borg form. My responses are all pre-programmed and stored on multiple internal hard disks. I might seem like a real person, but I am just words on a screen.

 

[Buckster]

I had already figured out that you weren't making your living as a photographer, not that it matters, we all have opinions.

You're right, it doesn't matter that I don't make my living as a photographer to understand what CG is capable of and what it's not capable of, and to read the article and understand what it's saying and what it's not.

On the other side of that coin, it's obvious that you being someone who makes his living as a photographer isn't helping you one bit to actually understand it at all.

Tell me how you would CG 40 or 50 snapshots from a 6 year old's birthday party instead of photographing them, then put those CG renderings on Facebook and all the parents, grandparents and friends of all those 6 year olds would find it believable that those CG renderings came from the party they ACTUALLY attended, and that those images are the images of their kids, themselves and the rest of the party-goers. Without taking the photos and handing them over to a CG artist to model and render over several weeks (months?) time (at a cost of WHAT???!!!), HOW would that artist have ANY CLUE what each kid (and parent, grandparent, cousin, family friend, party clown and any/all other attendees) should look like, and how they should be interacting with one another?

Go ahead and spell it out for me, professional photographer. Educate me.

 

[GeorgieGirl]

Who would have time for that for heaven's sake? Could you imagine how long that would take when a photog can capture all that in an hour?

 

[Derrel]

Well, as we ALL KNOW, video killed the radio star. Hell, they even wrote a song about that!! it was called, "Video Killed The Radio Star." And, as well all know, the DVD killed motion picture theaters. No, wait, it was the VHS tape that killed movie theaters!!!! Yes, that's it!!! And as well all know, televison killed the movie theater business. No, wait,wait,wait, that was supposed to happen, but it didn't. And as well all know, the motion picture totally eliminated live stage acting, and all actors were suddenly out of work, with no career prospects. Oh, waaaait one danged minute....that's not what happened! And as we all know, photography killed painting, and all of the painters in the world were left destitute, and nobody EVER made a painting after 1849 when that son0fabiatch Daguerre made his awful Daguerrotype process. Oh, wait,wait, that's not what happened...

 

[blackrose89]

Who would have time for that for heaven's sake? Could you imagine how long that would take when a photog can capture all that in an hour?

This!!!!

Hyper realism art of any medium : painting, drawing, sculpting you name it is Immensely difficult. Even by the most advanced and skilled artists who specialized in hyper realism through all history, it could take them months to complete ONE image. And 98% of all hyper realism is done with a reference. Wether it be a photo or a model posing for them. Tell me how, if it's the difficult for the most skilled in their craft to complete a piece, how the average person is going to go a wedding, memorize the whole thing, and recreate it from scratch? Something that can take people in the top of their field months to do ONE image the average person will be able to do the same with multiple images in a reasonable amount of time with no reference?

 

[imagemaker46]

I had already figured out that you weren't making your living as a photographer, not that it matters, we all have opinions.

You're right, it doesn't matter that I don't make my living as a photographer to understand what CG is capable of and what it's not capable of, and to read the article and understand what it's saying and what it's not.

On the other side of that coin, it's obvious that you being someone who makes his living as a photographer isn't helping you one bit to actually understand it at all.

Tell me how you would CG 40 or 50 snapshots from a 6 year old's birthday party instead of photographing them, then put those CG renderings on Facebook and all the parents, grandparents and friends of all those 6 year olds would find it believable that those CG renderings came from the party they ACTUALLY attended, and that those images are the images of their kids, themselves and the rest of the party-goers. Without taking the photos and handing them over to a CG artist to model and render over several weeks (months?) time (at a cost of WHAT???!!!), HOW would that artist have ANY CLUE what each kid (and parent, grandparent, cousin, family friend, party clown and any/all other attendees) should look like, and how they should be interacting with one another?

Go ahead and spell it out for me, professional photographer. Educate me.

You are correct, none of that can be replaced. Sporting events and weddings cannot be replaced with CGI either. I stand quite corrected on any of my previous statements. Only people that shoot photos in a studio of nuts and bolts can be replaced and the photographers that are hired to shoot stadiums, buildings, wildlife, travel, landscapes, fashion, anything that doesn't involve people, for now. It does put a very large group of photographers jobs in jeopardy at some point in the near future. I suppose for some, it really doesn't make any difference how photographers are affected. I do.