What will happens in 20 years in photography? (Page 7): I’m not all that intersted in what the average consumer does. It doesn’t really influence how I concieve my images or how I...

Darkroom317 Loc: Mishawaka, IN

traderjohn wrote:

To me. Cell phones and the instant gratification they offer to the younger generation will outway the need for DSLR's. How many young people or even young families do you see schlepping around camera bags?? Cell phones they have. That is their camera.

I’m not all that intersted in what the average consumer does. It doesn’t really influence how I concieve my images or how I create them

traderjohn Loc: New York City

JohnFrim wrote:

I agree with your comment on cell phones and photography; they are changing the entire perspective on photography. Perhaps the technology will become smart enough to enable people with no concept of what makes a good photograph still capture good photographs, but until then the world/internet is doomed to being flooded with many, many, many poor snapshots and -- my biggest peeve -- selfies!!!! God, I hate those sticks!!!!!!

I agree with you on those dumb ass self-serving "selfies".
"

Rongnongno Loc: FL

Err.... Do you see that you imply that 'photography' - whatever monster that is - will swallow photographers whole in the next future?

It will not even even chew them up!!!

Darkroom317 Loc: Mishawaka, IN

JohnFrim wrote:

I agree with your comment on cell phones and photography; they are changing the entire perspective on photography. Perhaps the technology will become smart enough to enable people with no concept of what makes a good photograph still capture good photographs, but until then the world/internet is doomed to being flooded with many, many, many poor snapshots and -- my biggest peeve -- selfies!!!! God, I hate those sticks!!!!!!

Speaking as a millenial, I agree with you about selfies and selfies sticks. I find them terribly annoying among other things. Worse still, my friends attempt to drag me into their group selfies.

JohnFrim Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.

My further thoughts on all those selfies...

"Want to see some photos of my last trip? I took almost 1000 amazing photos.
1. Here I am in front of...
2. This is a great shot of me on the...
...
....
995. Here we are posing at the...
996. Oh, this last one is just a scenery shot. Not very exciting."

Darkroom317 Loc: Mishawaka, IN

traderjohn wrote:

I am 2018 at the moment. Regardless of the era. They would be photographs, not art.

My point was that batteries are not necessary to produce photographs. Cameras are actually not necessary either

Rongnongno Loc: FL

JohnFrim wrote:

My further thoughts on all those selfies...

"Want to see some photos of my last trip? I took almost 1000 amazing photos.
1. Here I am in front of...
2. This is a great shot of me on the...
...
....
995. Here we are posing at the...
996. Oh, this last one is just a scenery shot. Not very exciting."

997. Raaaaaaahhhhh (last breath)

RichardQ Loc: Colorado

Darkroom317 wrote:

An interesting trend over the past decade has been the revival of processes such as wet-plate collodion, daguerreotypes, platinum/ palladium etc... It will be interesting if this continues over the next 20 years and what combinations and processes people will come up with.

Frankly though, I'm just hoping I will have a teaching job in 20 years.

2037 cameras might include a teacher on board -- a program that could analyze the image and instantly suggest a rearrangement of its elements to produce a better picture! Think about Nikon or Canon offering a variety of cameras, each offering a teaching algorithm based on the creative principles of a famous photographer, whose ghost would collaborate with the camera owner to improve his or her efforts on the spot. Nikon's "Ansel Adams" model! Canon's "Margaret Bourke White" model! "Edward Weston"! "Berenice Abbott"! "Weegee"!

Another fantasy idea would be future instant cataloging of the subjects in the camera, analyzing their exhibition potentials and grouping the best, while automatically deleting the worst (and displaying some pointed comments ordering the photographer to pay attention).

n3eg Loc: West coast USA

In 20 years, this thread will be started AGAIN by someone asking the same question.

Oh, and 60fps 32k frame grab will replace still photography, and the sixth axis (time) will be used for image stabilization.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

n3eg wrote:

In 20 years, this thread will be started AGAIN by someone asking the same question.

Oh, and 60fps 32k frame grab will replace still photography, and the sixth axis (time) will be used for image stabilization.

BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

Rongnongno wrote:

997. Raaaaaaahhhhh (last breath)

Sorry, Ron, but there would be no 995, 996 or 997. Probably by the time we reach 100 selfies, I would have throttled the selfie-snit or have shoved whatever amount of his/her equipment I could down his/her gullet and started to cram the rest of equipment in the other direction. Tell me, into which orifice would you introduce a badly warped home movie projector screen? 👹☠️👿

Rongnongno Loc: FL

BHC wrote:

Sorry, Ron, but there would be no 995, 996 or 997. Probably by the time we reach 100 selfies, I would have throttled the selfie-snit or have shoved whatever amount of his/her equipment I could down his/her gullet and started to cram the rest of equipment in the other direction. Tell me, into which orifice would you introduce a badly warped home movie projector screen? 👹☠️👿

You might want to ask this to my ghost. I heard the shroud is highly flexible but you will be hard pressed to find a place for your futuristic apparatus.

Shoeless_Photographer Loc: Lexington

The Shadow knows!

Rongnongno wrote:

Who the hell knows so what is it with all the thre... (show quote)

tommystrat Loc: Bigfork, Montana

Darkroom317 wrote:

Who cares about what will happen. It won't really effect my making photographs much. Equipment doesn't matter, images do.

What will change my photography more than technological advancements will be how I change and grow as a person and the experiences I will have..

As a photographer, golfer and musician, I find it interesting that, in each of those pursuits, answers to improving and growing as an artist or participant are often centered around acquiring the newest, most expensive gear, accessories, gadgets, widgets, etc. I smile a bit when a friend shows up with a brand new PRS electric guitar, costing in the thousands, and he is still struggling to play basic barre chords! My buddy invested over $2,000 in new golf clubs, and he struggles to get the ball off the ground. Invest in lessons instead of new clubs in order to learn the game? Nope.

In photography, it is the eye of the artist, the light, the moment that defines the image. Who cares what camera you used, or how much it cost, etc. Greg Noll, a legendary big-wave surfer, was asked what the limits of big wave surfing are. The discussion was centered around whether surfers being "towed-in" to huge waves by jet skis, rather than paddling-in like had traditionally been done, was ruining the "pure" surfing experience. He replied, "I'd be glad to be shot out of an elephant's a** if it helped me catch bigger waves." The end result...however achieved...is the final arbiter of art.

tommystrat Loc: Bigfork, Montana

travelwp wrote:

A subsection of the law mandates that a gallery that hosts a photo contest must give all participants an “honorable mention” certificate suitable for framing. In addition, each gallery must provide a safe room for those photographers whose feelings were hurt by not winning 1st place.

Oh heck yeah!