# "Photographers: youre being replaced by software"



## 2WheelPhoto (May 15, 2012)

Thoughts?



Photographers: you


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (May 15, 2012)

Quite some bold statements but the author posts pics to back them up



> For the first time in history, photography is about to lose control of  its monopoly on affordable, convincing realism and it's time for us to  understand that realism has never been the most important feature of the  photograph. Although we rarely think about it, we understand this  intuitively: a computer rendering of your daughter's wedding will never  be the same as a photograph even if both are equally realistic. The  photograph is defined by its causal, mechanical connection to the real  world. Academics have studied this aspect of photography for a long time  (for a very clear overview see Kendall Walton's _Transparent Pictures: On the Nature of Photographic Realism_),  but almost from the beginning photographers have stayed blissfully  unaware of theory and have systematically ignored and even undermined  their medium's connection to the world.


----------



## imagemaker46 (May 15, 2012)

It's not so much just the software, but video as well, as the quality of video gets better, image grabs are all that is going to be required.  I don't believe that photography will die soon, but it's a scary business to throw a lot of money into these days.


----------



## bhop (May 15, 2012)

Depends on the product.  I'd like to see him make one of our t-shirt samples draped on a human in that software.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (May 15, 2012)

bhop said:


> Depends on the product.  I'd like to see him make one of our t-shirt samples draped on a human in that software.



I suspect if it can't be done yet it will be soon enough as technology evolves


----------



## IByte (May 15, 2012)

I thought the fauxtographers were killing photographers like an incurable virus? OO


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (May 15, 2012)

I'm not buying it. There will always be a place for photography.

And that space isn't shrinking, it's simply changing. Just like it always has and always will.


----------



## 12sndsgood (May 15, 2012)

I think technolgy could get to that point down the line. but it seems like allot of guys with graphics programs and rederings are starting down the path allready. just seems like a change of the way you work. Im in the design field for construction. I started out on a board with pencil and eraser and now im doing the same thing on computer. It's just a change in how you put out your work.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (May 15, 2012)

12sndsgood said:


> I think technolgy could get to that point down the line. but it seems like allot of guys with graphics programs and rederings are starting down the path allready. just seems like a change of the way you work. Im in the design field for construction. I started out on a board with pencil and eraser and now im doing the same thing on computer. It's just a change in how you put out your work.



Yeah i see guys marking up CAD programs onsite with iPads...incredible!


----------



## IByte (May 15, 2012)

I already consider these people doing what's called matte painting and video compositing.


----------



## Josh66 (May 15, 2012)

2WheelPhoto said:


> bhop said:
> 
> 
> > Depends on the product.  I'd like to see him make one of our t-shirt samples draped on a human in that software.
> ...


It can be done.

I've been using Blender for a while, but I wouldn't call myself good at it.  I am very impressed by what people more skilled than myself can do with it though.

I don't consider it to be the same as photography, or even threatening photography in any way though...


The only real limit to what you can do in there (other than skill and experience) is how much processing power you have available.


----------



## Steve5D (May 15, 2012)

I'm not all to concerned about it...


----------



## Josh66 (May 15, 2012)

If you haven't used software like Blender before, it'll take some time to learn it.  But, it is actually very similar to photography - you set up your lights (including any modifiers you might want on them), set up the camera, then you just render the scene.

The hard part is designing it (the stuff in the scene).  That's where processing power comes in.  The more complex the scene, the more power you'll need.  If you built a computer specifically for that, you could render just about anything.


----------



## Josh66 (May 15, 2012)

Check this out:





Sintel, the Durian Open Movie Project

Short movie (15 minutes) made with Blender.


----------



## fokker (May 15, 2012)

Rotanimod said:


> I'm not buying it. There will always be a place for photography.
> 
> And that space isn't shrinking, it's simply changing. Just like it always has and always will.



That's more or less what he said in the article, or did you only read the title?


----------



## Fred Berg (May 16, 2012)

Our civilisation seems to be in decline.....


----------



## orljustin (May 16, 2012)

Images have been able to be rendered "photoreal" for a while.  There is nothing suddenly "disruptive" about this, and as illustrated, it is really limited to hard, physical objects.


----------



## Buckster (May 16, 2012)

As it said in the article, documentary type photos of real people and events will still be the realm of photography.  Weddings, seniors, portraits, babies, corporate headshots, news events, sports events, etc., all fall into that.

It's the product photographers and fantasy landscape photographers that will have to bear the brunt of most of the competition spoken of in the article, but that's been coming on stronger and stronger for quite a while already - hardly Earth-shaking news there.


----------



## Fred Berg (May 16, 2012)

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....


----------



## Buckster (May 16, 2012)

Fred Berg said:


> 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?


----------



## jake337 (May 16, 2012)

O|||||||O said:


> If you haven't used software like Blender before, it'll take some time to learn it.  But, it is actually very similar to photography - you set up your lights (including any modifiers you might want on them), set up the camera, then you just render the scene.
> 
> The hard part is designing it (the stuff in the scene).  That's where processing power comes in.  The more complex the scene, the more power you'll need.  If you built a computer specifically for that, you could render just about anything.



Yup and processing power is getting twice as fast and twice as small every two years.


----------



## jake337 (May 16, 2012)

Just wanted to add that image making devices will evolve, just as fast, right along side CGI.  So who knows what kinds of cameras we'll be using but I think they will still be there.


----------



## imagemaker46 (May 16, 2012)

Steve5D said:


> I'm not all to concerned about it...



Professional photographers in all areas of photography are...that's the difference between being an amateur and enjoying the hobby, and being a professional and having to work harder every year just to stay in the business.


----------



## imagemaker46 (May 16, 2012)

Software has made it easier for average photographers to fix the images they are producing, and passing it off as great work.


----------



## JohnTeigh (May 16, 2012)

photography is changing but so is the world, of course you need to adapt to the changes that are occurring around us. Like the article says fantasy photography is being eaten up by software but real life still needs someone to capture the moments.


----------



## Buckster (May 16, 2012)

imagemaker46 said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not all to concerned about it...
> ...


So, you're worried that 3D modeling and rendering is going to take away portraiture work?  Wedding photography?  School photos?  Senior photo work?  News coverage photos?  Sports plays photos?

_*HOW*_ is it going to do that?


----------



## Buckster (May 16, 2012)

imagemaker46 said:


> Software has made it easier for average photographers to fix the images they are producing, and passing it off as great work.


1. That has NOTHING to do with this article.  (Did you read it?)

2. It's about the end result from a client's point of view.  Either it IS great, or it is NOT.  They don't CARE how you got to the final product.  They don't care what, if any, software you used, or how good you are with it, any more than they care what camera and lens you used.  It just flat out doesn't matter.  All that matters is whether or not you can deliver the goods.  If you CAN, you get PAID.  If you CAN'T, you shuffle off with your empty pockets muttering about how more talented people stole your job.


----------



## imagemaker46 (May 16, 2012)

You're right,  a lot of clients don't care anymore about how they end up with pictures, but it is at the expence of the photographers that have worked for years at perfecting their skills.  What used to be done in camera, is now being done by software technicians on a computer.   

Everything software related does have an impact on photography.


----------



## Buckster (May 16, 2012)

imagemaker46 said:


> You're right,  a lot of clients don't care anymore about how they end up with pictures,


They never did.



imagemaker46 said:


> but it is at the expence of the photographers that have worked for years at perfecting their skills.  What used to be done in camera, is now being done by software technicians on a computer.


Not all of it, and that's the point.



imagemaker46 said:


> Everything software related does have an impact on photography.


No, it doesn't, and that's the point.  It's not worth the time and effort to model and render a family of four for the family photo they're going to hang over the mantle.  It's not practical.  You have to start with an actual image of them for it to look like them.  It's not like you can make up 4 fictional characters in a 3D modeling program and sell it to them as the family photo.

Same thing with sports plays and weddings and events and all the rest of the stuff I mentioned.

3D rendering works great for some things, like product photography and fictional scenes and characters.  But for real-life type documentation of what little Billy looked like at 7 years old with that big grin and the missing tooth, it doesn't work - it can't - because you have to START with an actual image of little Billy - a kid in India on a computer can't just make up an image of a 7 year old kid with a missing tooth on the fly and make anyone believe THAT really is little Billy.


----------



## Josh66 (May 16, 2012)

Buckster said:


> imagemaker46 said:
> 
> 
> > Steve5D said:
> ...


Photographers of the future will just be required to have a really good memory - so they can watch the wedding, then go to their office afterwards and spend a couple days modeling it.  Hope they don't get any important details wrong...


----------



## imagemaker46 (May 16, 2012)

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 (May 16, 2012)

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 (May 16, 2012)

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 (May 16, 2012)

Buckster said:


> Fred Berg said:
> 
> 
> > 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?
> ...



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 (May 16, 2012)

imagemaker46 said:


> 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.



imagemaker46 said:


> 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?



imagemaker46 said:


> 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.



imagemaker46 said:


> 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.



imagemaker46 said:


> Can I assume that you are a professional photographer?


No, you cannot assume anything.


----------



## Josh66 (May 16, 2012)

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 (May 16, 2012)

O|||||||O said:


> 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 (May 16, 2012)

Fred Berg said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > Fred Berg said:
> ...


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



Fred Berg said:


> 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.



Fred Berg said:


> 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.



Fred Berg said:


> 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 (May 16, 2012)

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


----------



## Derrel (May 16, 2012)

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 (May 16, 2012)

imagemaker46 said:


> 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 (May 16, 2012)

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 (May 16, 2012)

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 (May 16, 2012)

GeorgieGirl said:
			
		

> 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 (May 16, 2012)

Buckster said:


> imagemaker46 said:
> 
> 
> > I had already figured out that you weren't making your living as a photographer, not that it matters, we all have opinions.
> ...



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.


----------



## blackrose89 (May 16, 2012)

imagemaker46 said:
			
		

> 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.



I'm sure people who ran photo lab businesses took a major hit when Digital cameras and SLRs came out. Did that stop you from buying one? Did you protest DSLRs because you cared about the fate of the people who ran these businesses? just because someone isn't against technology moving doesn't mean they don't care.


----------



## 12sndsgood (May 16, 2012)

I think most here have agreed that it would be more product photography or generic shots that don't require a human that will be the issue. I dont think anyone is saying that kids birthday parties or weddings or the personal stuff will be what goes.


Now, i'm off to go buy some new 8 track tapes..... oh wait.   lol.


----------



## imagemaker46 (May 16, 2012)

blackrose89 said:


> imagemaker46 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I had a lot of friends that lost their businesses when digital came along, so I do care about that. I'm not against technology, digital changed photography, both good and bad, what we are talking about in this case is computers and software replacing photography, not just changing it. Big difference.


----------



## 12sndsgood (May 16, 2012)

Not much can be done about it though when you really get down to it. You cant tell the graphics world to stay out of the field. There goign to push their field as much as they can. In the futuree it could become a reality and the need for product photography could get allot smaller, chances are you would just start seeing less photographers going into that part of the field and instead concentrating there skills on the areas that still sell well. I think technology is still far off from being as cheap as joe blows company hiring a guy for a few days to get product shots of there goods.


----------



## Josh66 (May 16, 2012)

It would depend a lot on what the actual product was too.  Something like the iPhone they showed in the article is very simple to model.

If it was something that was going to take any significant amount of time to model, I can't see that being cheaper than hiring a photographer.

A photographer will be able to get the job done faster (which might be a deciding factor on it's own), meaning that the labor costs would be less.


----------



## ClickAddict (May 16, 2012)

Keep in mind that almost all new items hitting the market today would actually have the 3D model done as part of the R&D even before the first hard prototype.  With new better software, those design work 3D models will be more and more realistic, so when the product is ready for advertising, most companies should already have a realistict  rendered model to work with.  Add in some stock elements for background and you don't need anyone to even shoot the actual product.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (May 16, 2012)

^^^^^that. I asked a glamour photographer why he always shot the models with the white background and he explained because the customer's "graphics artist" takes the RAW file and adds product and background to the image.  He simply shoots the model.


----------



## Tarayn (May 16, 2012)

I don't know if this is on topic but, I think all the uncle bob`S(who just shoots blah photos and just photo photo shops up photos to death, just to make a quick buck) might be replacing some of the photographers in the middle.


----------



## imagemaker46 (May 17, 2012)

Tarayn said:


> I don't know if this is on topic but, I think all the uncle bob`S(who just shoots blah photos and just photo photo shops up photos to death, just to make a quick buck) might be replacing some of the photographers in the middle.



Generally all the weekend amateurs still lack the skills to shoot images that can be fixed in photoshop to the point of being a threat.  I believe the biggest concern to photography will not be coming from other photogarphers, but from CGI trained people with virtually no photogarphic skills.


----------



## IByte (May 17, 2012)

Tarayn said:
			
		

> I don't know if this is on topic but, I think all the uncle bob`S(who just shoots blah photos and just photo photo shops up photos to death, just to make a quick buck) might be replacing some of the photographers in the middle.



Fauxtographers at their best.


----------



## jake337 (May 17, 2012)

Buckster said:


> imagemaker46 said:
> 
> 
> > 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
> ...




It may not work now but as technology advance it may tell a different story.

When it comes to portrait, wedding and events it will be a long ways away but if all a person needed was a single photo(so yes they still need 1 photo) and then can create the rest in a virtual environment.  It sounds like a stretch but may very well be possible in the next ten years.

I think all imagemaker is trying to get across is that it will effect all aspects of professional photography in some way at, at some point in time.

For REAL people it just might take a bit longer than the other areas.  


Lets take a wedding for example.  Let's say all some with this new program needed was a single head-shot of the each of the wedding party, then was able to recreate the fantasy, perfect wedding via software. Maybe have a video camera set up to get see all the guest then create what they want with that.  Obviously not happening today, tomorrow or for many. many, many years to come but man technology is _seriously_ starting to pick up speed in it's evolution. 

Do you believe in Moore's Law?

Moore's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Transistor_Count_and_Moore%27s_Law_-_2011.svg


I think Imagemaker is just looking farther ahead in time than you.


----------



## Buckster (May 17, 2012)

jake337 said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > imagemaker46 said:
> ...


Tell me who wants a set of virtual wedding pictures with just the faces of the wedding party pasted in, rather than photos of the actual event, with every nuanced look, gesture and movement that ACTUALLY HAPPENED at the real thing?

A bride spends months working on every detail of her coming wedding, down to the kind of buttons that will be on her dress, and you're going to plop her head on a generic set of wedding pictures rendered in a 3D program, and you think that's going to fly?  Seriously?

You call up your family CG artist and say, "take my little Billy's head, which we gave you when he was 6, age it two years because now he's 8, and render me a picture of him running through the back yard with his friend Kyle in hot pursuit, both dressed as pirates, because I saw that today and thought it was SO CUTE!!!"

A week later, you get the image of little Billy and another kid, dressed as pirates, running through a back yard,  Unfortunately, Billy's aging process didn't come out looking quite like Billy looks at 8 years old, and his body style has changed because of a penchant for McDonald's, the pirate costumes don't look anything like the ones Billy and Kyle were actually wearing, the CG artist didn't have a head shot of Kyle, nor a body style to draw upon, so he grabbed a generic "Kyle" to use, who looks nothing like Billy's friend (didn't even get the hair color right), and the back yard is certainly not the client's back yard on the day Billy and Kyle were running through it.

Tell me *HOW* the CG artist gets all that correct, as well as all the other nuances of facial expressions, body language, and all the little details that actually _*MAKE*_ a photograph of a real scene what it is, while modeling and rendering a 3D model of the scene, all _*WITHOUT*_ a photographic reference to work from?

Share that secret with me, and we can chat about it.  Until then, what you and Imagemaker are saying about 3D rendering completely taking over photography of real people and situations is complete fiction.


----------



## jake337 (May 17, 2012)

Buckster said:


> jake337 said:
> 
> 
> > Buckster said:
> ...



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.


----------



## Buckster (May 17, 2012)

jake337 said:


> 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


----------



## imagemaker46 (May 17, 2012)

Buckster said:


> jake337 said:
> 
> 
> > Buckster said:
> ...



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.


----------



## imagemaker46 (May 17, 2012)

Buckster said:


> jake337 said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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


----------



## Buckster (May 17, 2012)

imagemaker46 said:


> 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 (May 17, 2012)

imagemaker46 said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > jake337 said:
> ...


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 (May 17, 2012)

Buckster said:


> jake337 said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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 (May 17, 2012)

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


----------

