Next up: Photography 2.0

DJ-S1DJ-S1 Registered Users Posts: 2,303 Major grins
edited March 4, 2008 in The Big Picture
Article on Crave about the future on photography.

Comments

  • RichardRichard Administrators, Vanilla Admin Posts: 19,962 moderator
    edited March 3, 2008
    DJ-S1 wrote:
    Article on Crave about the future on photography.

    So in the future, I'm going to need a whole bunch of equipment I don't have and my computer will be too wimpy to process the images. Sounds a lot like the past to me...rolleyes1.gif

    Regards,
    My Pics
  • claudermilkclaudermilk Registered Users Posts: 2,756 Major grins
    edited March 3, 2008
    Interesting. However I have to ask the obvious question: what's so wrong with traditional photography?
    Chris
    http://www.chrislaudermilkphoto.com/
  • DJ-S1DJ-S1 Registered Users Posts: 2,303 Major grins
    edited March 3, 2008
    rsinmadrid wrote:
    So in the future, I'm going to need a whole bunch of equipment I don't have and my computer will be too wimpy to process the images. Sounds a lot like the past to me...rolleyes1.gif

    Regards,
    Yep, deja-vu all over again!
    claudermilk wrote:
    the obvious question: what's so wrong with traditional photography?
    By traditional photography, do you mean film/darkroom pp, or digital/computer pp? I personally don't think there's anything wrong with either one, but they both have their strong points. These new technologies will have theirs as well.

    Mostly I think it's all about greater creative control after the fact. You can do some pp in a darkroom, but it's easier/faster/more flexible on a computer. (Note I didn't say "better") So for example now you can change the white balance fairly easily where you may not have been able to before. This new stuff may mean you can change the DOF after the fact easily, which is something you can't do now.

    Again, not necessarily better but it seems the trend is to delay the creative decisions instead of making all of them at the time of shutter release.
  • claudermilkclaudermilk Registered Users Posts: 2,756 Major grins
    edited March 4, 2008
    It was this comment in the article that set me off:
    People are realizing that maybe we shouldn't just be trying to make the best traditional photography experience
    Which is why I'm asking why not? To me he has a serious vested interest in pushing the new technology his employer is working on; I won't say he's quite "dissing" the traditional method, but is close. OK, fine, but IMHO there is nothing wrong with traditional methods (chemical-based, or digital-based). Sheesh, now I'm starting to sound a bit like the APUG traditionalists.rolleyes1.gif
    Chris
    http://www.chrislaudermilkphoto.com/
  • DJ-S1DJ-S1 Registered Users Posts: 2,303 Major grins
    edited March 4, 2008
    Oh, I see what you mean. I agree, that's a bit much -
  • colourboxcolourbox Registered Users Posts: 2,095 Major grins
    edited March 4, 2008
    I think he's just saying we shouldn't be hemmed in by our set expectations on how to do things. When digital started, everyone who was into it then was obsessed with reaching film quality. In other words the properties of film were the yardstick and there wasn't much thought to what you could do if you weren't limiting yourself to the film scope.

    Now we wouldn't dream of limiting ourselves to film standards. My film SLRs/lenses did not have image stabilization. My film point-and-shoots did not have full control over shutter speed and aperture like my digital P&S does. My film prints did not have the range and archival longevity of digital prints. My film could never produce a smooth image at ISO 1600. And you can take all of this stuff and make a nice print that can hang next to a film print and no one will say "Oh, is that digital?"

    "Traditional photography" is apparently a loaded term. Traditional photography is the photography YOU got used to.

    "Talkies are going to ruin motion pictures!" (People did get passionate about that one)
Sign In or Register to comment.