BebuLamar

Why do we want to apply an algorithm to the image in camera if it can be done afterward?

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Personally, I'm quite happy with the entire traditional photographic process. I'm not keen on a camera or software being in control of the photograph I'm attempting to make.
--Bob

dbrugger25 Loc: Raleigh, NC

Odd!

Many times I have waited hours for the Sun to be in just-the-right position, I have spent time adjusting lighting and poses, and my position to capture great photographs.

In spite of all that, the best photos I have ever captured were the result of accidentally being in just the right place at the right moment in the right lighting and impulsively pressing the shutter button.

Years ago I had a 3.2 MP Sony pocket camera that had a delay between when I pressed the button and the photo being taken. I used it at weddings and receptions and amusement parks and street photos where there was a lot of fast-paced motion. Because of the shutter delay, many of the photos I captured were better than the ones that would have resulted without the delay.

I guess I could have been called the accidental photo artist.

JBRIII

What the original question suggested: A.I. in the camera rather than on a separate computer is likely a matter of how long it takes to cram the equivalent of today's PC on a chip or chips that can fit in a camera at acceptable cost. There are always algorithms available, but not practical at a given time for the devices readily available. This has nothing to do with cameras in particular, but computational limits of chips and the requirements of algorithms. For example, last year an article showed amazing results for increasing resolution in images composed by combining multiple low res. satellite images. Problem was it takes a supercomputer and lots of time, and thus totally impractical for any of us today. So the algorithm is there, give another decade or two and so might our PCs or cameras.

MrBob Loc: lookout Mtn. NE Alabama

Well Beb, WHY do we have a choice of camera profiles when shooting RAW... The one we choose as a default is an Algorithm... i.e. vivid, portrait, neutral etc... WHY does everyone have to be so specific about mentioning Algorithms per se? My question, hoping to generate some USEFUL discussion, was about future advances and direction we might be going in through computational photography, chip advances AND also future algorithms in the area of AI etc... Maybe discussions should be relegated to which is better, Canon or Nikon.

jlg1000 Loc: Uruguay / South America

Yes, as an engineer involved in AI projects, I do believe that future cameras will integrate AI systems to create stunning results... that would be a kind of "Super-Auto" or "AI-Auto" mode.

The thing is that for some it would be useful... for people who want good results quickly (think of sports photojournalists who need to send the pictures NOW), but for others who want to create an image how they like, shooting RAW and doing PP afterwards will appeal more.

This is almost like the JPEG vs RAW discussion... the camera is a tool and everyone shall use it as he or she sees fit.

BebuLamar

If you choose vivid, portrait, neutral etc.. all of those settings are not set in stone. They can be changed in post. The same is for white balance. The settings that are criticals are aperture, shutter speed, and even ISO. Those can't be changed in post without some bad side effects. Settings that can be altered with no ill effects in post are better left be done in post. The processor in a typical computer is more powerful than the one in the camera and even if it's not it can spend much more time to apply the algorithm than the camera. In camera algorithm must be done fast or not doing it at all. I much rather have the camera brain working on focusing the right subject.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

When you look at your images and results, dig deeper, dig into 'why' this image not want you wanted or think you should be able to produce? What is it that missing? Time to consider the subject, such as not just shooting from eye level, standing straight up, from too far a distance? Are you not exposing or focusing properly? Is there a better image in the file that you just need to crop to obtain? Do you wish you had a version where you had stood just a little to the left or right or held the camera lower, etc?

Professional athletes constantly watch video, both of the opponents and of their own performances. They're looking at themselves, what did I do wrong, what can I do better? Critically look at your images and consider what caused each image, both the good and the bad. Repeat what was good and figure out how to stop what was bad.

Example: a long time ago I realized I was cropping extensively every image to something more compelling. I was losing a lot of pixels. I trained myself to see and capture the cropped result by standing closer and / or zooming longer, not cropping later. I also take lots of versions, trying to get one that matches what I saw (felt) when I first considered the subject. I only keep the one that is the least editing work and is the strongest both technically and composition when viewed on a large monitor, away from the rush of the capture process.

If your golf friends would consider their own actions rather than the equipment, they'd probably start to get better. A video might show kinks in their wing that practice could resolve. Tracking their swings vs puts might reveal they're not getting to the green fast enough, or they're on the green, but their putting sucks. This too is what the pros do.

MrBob Loc: lookout Mtn. NE Alabama

My post was really about OUR BRAINS speculating on what the future holds in AI, computational computing etc... instead of ridiculous go nowhere discussions of DSLR vs. mirrorless, or WHO has the most sales in Aug. of 2022. I fully understand what you are saying about Algorithms in camera etc... but what about things like adding pixels and other things that comp. computing is driving ? We see these things cropping up ( pardon the pun ), in a lot of specialized editing programs... I am by far NOT an engineer but I think discussions of this type stuff are far more interesting than 20+ pages on DSLR vs. mirrorless.

MrBob Loc: lookout Mtn. NE Alabama

I guess I was fishing for folks like you with the expertise to speculate on specifics of where you think AI etc... is going to take us. I just saw an ad for a Canon 3D virtual reality lens... Don't know a thing about it but things like this are interesting, at least to me anyway. Oh well, Nothing but change.... will be interesting to see what the next 25+ page discussion will be about.

srg

I am not that good at either photography or pool, but when I got my own custom built cue i felt a certain magic. Same when i got a real camera.

stanikon Loc: Deep in the Heart of Texas

I think you are spot on. I confess I have fallen into the same trap; hence, a huge pile of gear, much of which never gets used, and my photography improves very little if at all. So I have come to believe my own favorite saying, "What's behind the camera is more important than what's in the camera."

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

My Olympus OM-1 already has a “Computational Photography” menu. It includes things like Hi-Def photo, (80mp on a tripod, 5mp handheld), in camera focus stacking, Live ND, (virtual ND filter up to 6 stops), HDR and Live Composite, (a really interesting function that takes an initial exposure and keeps adding only new light until you stop it).

MrBob Loc: lookout Mtn. NE Alabama

Yes, I also shoot Olympus. They are on the leading edge of the stuff we should be talking about...

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

Paul hit the nail on the head here. No matter what your endeavor, photography, sports, music, art, etc. the way you get better is to do it. But just going out and doing it in itself won’t make you better if you just shoot the same way. View shooting as “practice” and good practice isn’t just repetition. It’s evaluating your results, determining what you want to work on and focusing on that when you shoot. It should include technical skills, learning the different focus and metering modes, knowing which modes to use depending on the situation, learning to control focus points, basically knowing how to get the most out of your camera. It should also include learning to evaluate scenes. Should I use a certain shutter speed or f-stop? Is everything in the frame? Is too much in the frame? Is there something about the scene that requires exposure compensation? Does the angle I’m shooting from offer the best background? Do you have a local camera club? My main impetus for joining was to get better peer review. It’s nice getting accolades from friends and family but I wanted critiques from those more knowledgeable. I feel my work has steadily improved over the few years I’ve been in a club.