What would change your mind?

[tecmic]

Like a lot of other things, photography has become as much about electronics as it is about the traditional technologies, such as lens glass. There are many benefits to this and the biggest, as far as I'm concerned, is the ability to take hundreds, even thousands of shots and select those that you want to keep or print and discard the rest. No developing costs and complete freedom of choice.

There's a downside! Technology develops quickly and improved, more capable versions of what you've got, appear on the market in ever shorter timescales. That £3000 super SLR you bought 2 years ago is now outgunned by a £1000 all singing, all dancing SLR, which can make the breakfast, as well! Worst than that, a new technology appears that threatens to make all your kit redundant, lens included and this isn't fanciful daydreaming, it's becoming a reality.

What are you going to do?

Well, you could ignore the new stuff and carry on with your very competent digital SLR/high quality lens combination, producing very good stills and on later kit, high quality HD video.

You're at a party and somebody mentions photos. They pull out a device that looks nothing like the high end SLR you prize so much, yet it can project images that are not only as good as your super SLR but appear to come into focus when you select any part of the image. Not only that, but they are top end quality with pin sharp resolution and provide a 3D aspect to their presentation.

Doubt creeps into your thinking...this new photography is a killer. It can do what your old SLR can do and a lot more! Am I being fanciful? You bet I'm not, this mega change to image capture is about to happen. You and me will soon have some decisions to make.:camera:

 

[KmH]

Not really, because the quality of photography will long remain a function of the wetware, not the hardware.

 

[tecmic]

If by wetware you mean the photographers 'eye' or visual accuity, I agree that this ultimately differentiates the top shots from the average. Nevertheless, this aspect isn't so important to the non professional, who probably comprise only a percent or two of the aspiring photographers in our society. The content rather than the configuration of an image takes precedence with the majority, who capture images for the family album rather than the pages of Vogue. Pin sharp, immaculate images will be the norm, allowing the new photographic dimensions to become the 'required features' for the mass market. Pro photography will still be pro photography but will remain or even reduce it's importance as technology does more for the picture taker.

 

[KmH]

Wetware is the human. All parts, but mostly the intangable aspect we call the mind, the part that makes art.

 

[tirediron]

Doesn't matter a fig to me. The camera is, always has been, and doubtless always will be the least important part of the photographic equation. The camera makes no difference if you don't understand how to work with light, control DoF, FoV, and a hundred other things. It's immaterial if you can't 'see' your image, and work toward that vision. The best camera in the world is little more than a paperweight in the hands of someone with no imagination or understanding of photography.

 

[tecmic]

You judge the situation by old standards! Technology will replace the manual manipulation, currently needed to adjust for the inadequecies of contemporay equipment...it's already happening! That long held belief that nothing can replace the intuition and judgement of the human in these decisions, is fast being eroded. The only decisions that will be left for mankind to make will be to point the device and take the picture or not! Like autopilot in aircraft, it's just a matter of time.

 

[Tomasko]

You judge the situation by old standards! Technology will replace the manual manipulation, currently needed to adjust for the inadequecies of contemporay equipment...it's already happening! That long held belief that nothing can replace the intuition and judgement of the human in these decisions, is fast being eroded. The only decisions that will be left for mankind to make will be to point the device and take the picture or not! Like autopilot in aircraft, it's just a matter of time.

Well, and you judge the situation on looking at too much sci-fi movies There's no way technology will any time soon replace human way of thinking, or creativity, or ability to adapt etc. If you feel threatened by newer gear, maybe you should reconsider your career...

 

[tirediron]

...Like autopilot in aircraft, it's just a matter of time.

Ehhh, sorry, don't by that. Not one bit. Auto-pilot, like every other robotic ('automatic') device that exists in the world today, runs on pre-programmed instructions. It responds to a given input with a predictable output based on its programming and sundry other variables and circumstances. While you could easily produce an autopile that would take photographs, it couldn't produce art. It could only take pictures when directed to by the software. For instance, let's assume that the Autocamera 2000(TM) has been directed to take pictures of the winner of a race. It's mounted on a robotic chassis which locates the pressbox at the finish line by proceding to a preprogrammed latitude and longitude. Its software tells it to shoot 10 exposures every time the noise of the crowd rises above 'X' db, based on the assumption that they will cheer wildly as their favorite gets close to the finish line.

Now, let's say that there are two favorites. Racer one and Racer two are perfectly matched and it's a coin toss as to which one will win; they are both supported by an approximately equal number of supporters in the stands. Let's further suppose that Racer three is a dark horse, and in the last twenty yards of the race, pulls out a super-human bit of endurance and closes the gap between himself and the two leaders. The crowd is so astounded, that they are totally silent for the last five seconds of the race, and it's not until all three are over the finish line that they begin to cheer. The Autocamera 2000(TM) gets ten wonderful, perfectly exposed shots of the Racers four, five and six crossing the finish line...

I don't deny that one day, there may be machines that have the cognitative capacity to produce art, but I think we're many generations away from at the moment.

 

[Helen B]

...Pin sharp, immaculate images will be the norm...

Yeah, right. Instagram and Hipstamatic, egregiously tone-mapped HDR, over-processed emptiness and all cheesy effects will be totally outmoded and the plague will end overnight. We can but hope.

 

[IgsEMT]

I don't deny that one day, there may be machines that have the cognitative capacity to produce art, but I think we're many generations away from at the moment.

There are robotics that can create art, but it isn't impulsive, rather preprogrammed.
So as was mentioned by many above - photographic gear, as important as it is, would amount to pile of junk w/o an artist looking into the viewfinder.

 

[tirediron]

There are robotics that can create art, but it isn't impulsive, rather preprogrammed...

Then is it really art?

 

[Tomasko]

I don't deny that one day, there may be machines that have the cognitative capacity to produce art, but I think we're many generations away from at the moment.

There are robotics that can create art, but it isn't impulsive, rather preprogrammed.

Who's the author then? It's the same as if you were saying, that your pen can create art by itself.. it just needs to be led by your hand

 

[IgsEMT]

I don't deny that one day, there may be machines that have the cognitative capacity to produce art, but I think we're many generations away from at the moment.

There are robotics that can create art, but it isn't impulsive, rather preprogrammed.

Who's the author then? It's the same as if you were saying, that your pen can create art by itself.. it just needs to be led by your hand

I'm on the East coast of US, it is only 930 in the evening, TOOOOO EARLY for philosophical discussions

 

[KmH]

Like autopilot in aircraft, it's just a matter of time.

And pilots are crashing airplanes left and right because they don't know how to fly anymore.

We are in fact begining to see the down sides to technology.

Witness the flood of so-called professional retail photographers that have zip clue how a high quality photograph is made.

 

[tecmic]

The arguments are mostly totally valid. The human does contribute the artistic interpretation and will continue to. I'm not suggesting that this will be done by the camera but that the camera will make all the adjustments required to produce the best possible image.


My Autopilot example was intended to illustrate how technology changed what was thought to be impossible. BTW, Pilots are not crashing planes left, right and centre, in fact aircraft accidents are a fraction of the number of automobile crashes for the same timescale. That's a classic and emotive response that misrepresents the facts. As for me watching too much sci fi, I suggest you spend some time bringing yourself up-to-date with what's happening in the photographic world at a technical level.

Why would we ignore new technologies that will make photography even more exciting? I don't understand this automatic resistance to new ideas...is it too much of a challenge to the status quo and man's control of the skill? Do you think that the current SLR technology is going last forever?