"Photographers: you’re being replaced by software"

[imagemaker46]

Again, I'm thinking way, way, way in the future. Like something You or I will never see. Maybe my son won't see. Yes it is complete fiction, now.

Here's what I think... Even IF CG completely, totally replaces photographic images someday, it will still be done with a camera-like device that captures the real scene with the real people and things in it and the expressions and all the rest, and then renders it.

Such a device will have to be at least a 3D capture device for the computer program to work out depth issues in the rendering, but if you want to be able to spin the whole scene around and see it from any angle, as true CG is, then it will need to instantly capture that scene from at least 3 points of view surrounding the scene - no easy thing on the spur of the moment, unless such devices are just EVERYWHERE, ready to capture ALL THE TIME.

Perhaps I just lack vision, but I cannot see any way of making such a device practical for everyday use in capturing the kinds of real life events I've been talking about CG being unable to deal with effectively. It's just not enough for me to buy into it based on some vague idea that someday it will take over photography completely, without any real thought apparently given to "how" it possibly can overcome some very basic physics problems in order to do so.

YMMV

A practical everyday device like a digital camera 15 years ago, or a computer 25 years ago.

 

[Buckster]

I already addressed your side of this, and you are correct in what you have been pushing. At this point in time some aspects of photography and life in general won't be replaced by CGI. What I said was that some areas of photography are being replaced now and will continue to be replaced, these areas are affecting professional photographers. There won't be a need, for photographers to shoot architecture, landscapes, wildlife or virtually anthing else can be created from nothing expect the computer software and a computer tech. As technology progresses holographic projections will replace everything, why would you shoot stills of anything when you can record and replay your wedding, sporting events etc. This is probably closer to a reality than most think.

It wasn't long ago that 99% of the world was still shooting film, 10 years.

I was addressing fresh assertions make by jake337, who decided to speak on your behalf.

 

[Buckster]

Again, I'm thinking way, way, way in the future. Like something You or I will never see. Maybe my son won't see. Yes it is complete fiction, now.

Here's what I think... Even IF CG completely, totally replaces photographic images someday, it will still be done with a camera-like device that captures the real scene with the real people and things in it and the expressions and all the rest, and then renders it.

Such a device will have to be at least a 3D capture device for the computer program to work out depth issues in the rendering, but if you want to be able to spin the whole scene around and see it from any angle, as true CG is, then it will need to instantly capture that scene from at least 3 points of view surrounding the scene - no easy thing on the spur of the moment, unless such devices are just EVERYWHERE, ready to capture ALL THE TIME.

Perhaps I just lack vision, but I cannot see any way of making such a device practical for everyday use in capturing the kinds of real life events I've been talking about CG being unable to deal with effectively. It's just not enough for me to buy into it based on some vague idea that someday it will take over photography completely, without any real thought apparently given to "how" it possibly can overcome some very basic physics problems in order to do so.

YMMV

A practical everyday device like a digital camera 15 years ago, or a computer 25 years ago.

Digital cameras and computers are child's play and easily imagined as soon as you take electronics 101 somewhere, especially compared to what you folks are proposing, which is currently out of the realm of known physics, like the idea of building a Star Trek Transporter.

You need to spend a little time looking into what CG actually is and what it entails when it comes to gathering and using data to build and render models, and then come back to this conversation.

 

[jake337]

Again, I'm thinking way, way, way in the future. Like something You or I will never see. Maybe my son won't see. Yes it is complete fiction, now.

Here's what I think... Even IF CG completely, totally replaces photographic images someday, it will still be done with a camera-like device that captures the real scene with the real people and things in it and the expressions and all the rest, and then renders it.

Such a device will have to be at least a 3D capture device for the computer program to work out depth issues in the rendering, but if you want to be able to spin the whole scene around and see it from any angle, as true CG is, then it will need to instantly capture that scene from at least 3 points of view surrounding the scene - no easy thing on the spur of the moment, unless such devices are just EVERYWHERE, ready to capture ALL THE TIME.

Perhaps I just lack vision, but I cannot see any way of making such a device practical for everyday use in capturing the kinds of real life events I've been talking about CG being unable to deal with effectively. It's just not enough for me to buy into it based on some vague idea that someday it will take over photography completely, without any real thought apparently given to "how" it possibly can overcome some very basic physics problems in order to do so.

YMMV

I agree and even if devices are made I'll still be using a DSLR/SLR or view camera! I don't think a wedding is a good is example as I showed. But maybe portraits or senior portraits. All they would need is a headshot and the rest of the lighting, posing, compostion, background would be done with software.

Remember I'm on your side, I don't want that.

I also have my head in the clouds. I often ponder the far future that I will never see.


I don't think it will ever completely take over becasue even if it "does" there will still be die hard film/dslr/slr/medium format/large forma/tview camera/pinhole/lensbaby/lynny/etc buffs to ensure that images are still being taken by humans rather than made by software, but to say it cannot could backfire.

 

[imagemaker46]

I apologize for my ignorance when it comes to the technology that you understand so well. I guess I have nothing else to add.