Frapha Loc: Tulsa, Oklahoma

An interesting article in many respects ... especially if you have fond memories of "the film days" and fall in that "over 50" category .....
http://visualsciencelab.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-graying-of-traditional-photography.html

klaus Loc: Guatemala City, Guatemala

Excellent article!
I seriously doubt you will find much love for it though here from the graying UHH crowd. The prevailing consensus here is still that bigger and heavier is always better and if it doesn't produce tack sharp pictures at 500x magnification it must be crap altogether. Megapixel, ISO and 2.8 L glass rule!

St3v3M Loc: 35,000 feet

Evolve, fall behind or lead the way, there are no other options.

slipsiu Loc: California

My take on this article is that photography is devolving to the least common denominator, which I disagree with. There have always been people who want to take snapshots and those that see photography as a hobby. Photography as a hobby is about learning and thinking, not simply immediate gratification.

klaus Loc: Guatemala City, Guatemala

No, that's not what this article is all about.

I says that the idea of what a good photo should be is changing from a piece of technical perfection to that of telling a story. The better the story the better the photo.
According to the article the technical aspect (our older generation thinks is so important) will be replaced with the inherent picture quality and intelligence of future camera generations. As technology further progresses the technical aspect will become irrelevant in the creation of a picture.

We, the older generation are still using digital cameras exactly the same way we used film cameras 40 years ago. We appreciate the technical marvel we hold in our hands and revel in the competence we have acquired over the years and the labor involved to create that technically perfect picture. We are still taking our "digital film" home and develop it in our "digital darkroom". Pictures are then printed on expensive photo-quality color printers so they can be looked at by friends and family.

What we have to come to grips with is that the younger generation has shamelessly taken our digital photo media and is now taking it into an entirely different direction. Why would you use a heavy bulky DSLR when Smartphones have more megapixels and fit into a shirtpocket. Digital darkroom? Well, there is an app for that. There is also no good reason to take the digital film home anymore. Pictures are processed on the spot and seconds later that photo is on it's way to family, friends or the evening news.

It is similar to what happened to the music industry over the last 30 years. Initially when analog records were replaced with digital music CD's the distribution and the equipment necessary largely remained the same. CD's were still bought in a record store, taken home and then listened to on powerful and complicated stereo systems with refrigerator-sized speakers. Nowadays all that technical glory has been replaced with MP3's (that were maybe created by the artist the day before) then downloaded from the internet to the same smartphone the pictures are now taken with.

I agree that there will always be a crowd interested in taking snapshots only. That's not a new trend or concept though. Kodak became very successful when it introduced the Brownie more than 100 years ago.

There will always be the other kind of people though who want to push the limits of their current technology and that's what the article was all about.

So where does that leave the high dollar, high tech DSLR? Maybe in 10 years having one and taking pictures with it would be be very similar to owning and using a medium-format Hasselblad film camera today.