Future Photography

[Wild-Woman]

With the level of expertise and quality of the photographs being submitted to the gallery, it does make you wonder what the future holds for photography.
Field guides that are, and will be produced, are going to be spot-on. Features so pin-sharp, because of the accuracy of macro photography, is going to make identification of smaller species easier I'm sure.
What direction for the future of photography now? You comments please.

[zan]

I was reading somewhere recently that stills photography is moving to become obsolete. With the improvements in video technology, it won't be too long (10-20 years maybe) before videos are high enough resolution to print still frames from, effectively creating continuous 24 frames per second cameras!

Apparently there are also plans for '3D' cameras which will allow you to alter teh depth of field and focus plane after shooting (which would be great for all those near-misses!). All of this is years away right enough, but it should be interesting.

[Bub-les]

Originally Posted by zan

effectively creating continuous 24 frames per second cameras!

Imagine trying to find your best shot!
And the hard drive needed!
I have enough trouble with 3-5 frames per sec!
Barbara

[Hobjob]

For field guides I usually find artists pictures better though.
They can emphasize (possibly even over-emphasize) certain
bits etc..

[Geoff F]

But, this increasing demand for better images comes at a financial cost. Yes, good quality cameras and lenses may be relatively cheaper now but they are still beyond the reach of many would be photographers. Equipment which was totally beyond my budget 10 years ago is now slightly beyond what I can afford. But it is still unobtainable and newly designed equipment is tending to widen the gap again.

What I am trying to say is that I do my best with what I can afford, but when I look at what others are producing with more expensive equipment I tend to get disheartened. For example, after taking what I think is a good image (for my equipment) I look in the Gallery to check ID and find loads of far better photos taken with gear which is totally beyond my reach.

OK, I know that photography is about more than competition for highest quality images but sometimes I wonder if the good/average gap is getting wider again. And this time the depth of your pocket will be more important than personal skill.

Some 'point & shoot' cameras are capable of producing better than ever quality at a cost which is half what it was 10 years ago so there are increasing numbers of budding 'happy snappers' taking images with far more pixels than they need for those 6 x 4 ins prints which they still get 'developed' by the local photo shop, just like the days of film. But do they get disappointed when they attempt the next stage up; and then give up on photography.

Not sure if I am putting my thinking across well; just hope it makes a little sense to somebody.

[DuncanE]

Originally Posted by zan

I was reading somewhere recently that stills photography is moving to become obsolete. With the improvements in video technology, it won't be too long (10-20 years maybe) before videos are high enough resolution to print still frames from, effectively creating continuous 24 frames per second cameras!

Apparently there are also plans for '3D' cameras which will allow you to alter teh depth of field and focus plane after shooting (which would be great for all those near-misses!). All of this is years away right enough, but it should be interesting.

I wouldn't want to use my handycam for any still photography even if it had the best HD sensor in the world. Surely to have a good stills photo you need enough light to get to the sensor, so a big camera would be needed to get anything near decent.

[Nettle Runner]

There does seem to be a move towards getting GPS positions onto the exif data. As far as I know, this requires an external bit of kit at the present time, but I'm sure that it could be combined within the camera body in time.

Has anybody taken advantage of this technology?

Les

[zan]

Originally Posted by DuncanE

I wouldn't want to use my handycam for any still photography even if it had the best HD sensor in the world. Surely to have a good stills photo you need enough light to get to the sensor, so a big camera would be needed to get anything near decent.

Aye, true enough at the moment. But think how far technology has come in the last 20 years generally and I think it will be possible. I remember 20 years ago playing computer games on a black and white mac and thinking it was great. When our PC was upgraded to cope with 16 colours, it was brilliant. Now we can produce colour CGI films, and produce people \ effects that are hard to tell from real images. Even in teh last 10 years, we've moved from 200,000 pixel digital cameras to 12,000,000 and a quality that can rival 36mm film.

Chances are, in 20 years HD sensors could well be obsolete as well.

[mh68]

Originally Posted by Geoff F

But, this increasing demand for better images comes at a financial cost. Yes, good quality cameras and lenses may be relatively cheaper now but they are still beyond the reach of many would be photographers. Equipment which was totally beyond my budget 10 years ago is now slightly beyond what I can afford. But it is still unobtainable and newly designed equipment is tending to widen the gap again.

What I am trying to say is that I do my best with what I can afford, but when I look at what others are producing with more expensive equipment I tend to get disheartened. For example, after taking what I think is a good image (for my equipment) I look in the Gallery to check ID and find loads of far better photos taken with gear which is totally beyond my reach.

OK, I know that photography is about more than competition for highest quality images but sometimes I wonder if the good/average gap is getting wider again. And this time the depth of your pocket will be more important than personal skill.

Some 'point & shoot' cameras are capable of producing better than ever quality at a cost which is half what it was 10 years ago so there are increasing numbers of budding 'happy snappers' taking images with far more pixels than they need for those 6 x 4 ins prints which they still get 'developed' by the local photo shop, just like the days of film. But do they get disappointed when they attempt the next stage up; and then give up on photography.

Not sure if I am putting my thinking across well; just hope it makes a little sense to somebody.

Makes sense to me Geoff. It`s easy though to see images better than your own,and put it down to the gear used,when really it`s down to the opportunity that the photographer had at the time - he/she may have got closer to a particular subject than youve managed yourself, been in in a more photogenic location etc etc. If you`d been in the same situation i`d bet that there`d be little difference between your shots and the other persons.
Obviously the high end lenses etc do make a difference in image quality - at a price - but the more affordable gear can still hold its own I think,as the overall quality is still very good. I`ve seen mammal pics for example(my main passion), taken with bridge cams/compacts which are far better than i`ve managed to achieve with my DSLR, purely due to the fact that the photographer had better opportunities than i`ve had myself, nothing to do with the gear at all.

Mark H

[The Black Rabbit]

Originally Posted by Wild-Woman

With the level of expertise and quality of the photographs being submitted to the gallery, it does make you wonder what the future holds for photography.
Field guides that are, and will be produced, are going to be spot-on. Features so pin-sharp, because of the accuracy of macro photography, is going to make identification of smaller species easier I'm sure.
What direction for the future of photography now? You comments please.

I am of the opinion, (even more so now) that if the person behind the lens holds composition as paramount, and considers photography an art, rather than a science, photography will always have a future.
Detail, identification etc... is all very well, but I'd like to think, (well.... hope, anyhoo), that photography has more to offer than that.
If a photographer has the ability to "paint a picture" with his or her camera (rather than just offer incredible detail etc...), all power to them, as far as I'm concerned.
TBR

[coasty]

When I bought my first SLR in about 1976? A practica I seem to remember the advances in lense and light metering at the time lead to all sorts of discussions in the Amateur photograher mag at the time that would all the skill go out of taking photos.
I think that nothing has changed between then and now. Yes cameras are technologically more advanced and can deliver a well exposed and better focussed photo with more efficiency.
However My friend Dog has hit the nail on the head the secret of good photography is composition and having an eye for a picture. Without those you are meerly recording a photographic record. You are not creating a photograph.

[The Black Rabbit]

Why thank you koind sir.

[mh68]

Originally Posted by coasty

Without those you are meerly recording a photographic record. You are not creating a photograph.

This statement, and Doug`s post, has really made me sit back and think about my own photography.... thanks to both of you

Mark H