Are the days of professional Photographer Numbered?

StevenFullerton

StevenFullerton

Suspended / Banned
Messages
129
Name
Steven Fullerton
Edit My Images
No
Canon demonstrated a concept camera of the future at the world expo, Its good to see they kept the viewfinder!

Worth a look!
Weigh in with your view!


[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7Vkws4AgR8[/YOUTUBE]

Link if the video doesnt work : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7Vkws4AgR8
 
brilliant, if they pull that off, and they will, then the answer to your question is yes
that'll cheer the brides father up :D
 
repost already posted a few down on the section first page:)
 
While that does appear to be some crazy tech, "perfect exposure" doesn't mean "artistic exposure", nor does it account for artistic ideas. The idea that you shoot a long video and then pick out stills doesn't sit well with me...You record it and hope that you happen to capture a good moment by accident? Nah. Good photography is having an idea, thinking about it, and composing it. Does this camera record the subject from all possible angles and distances at once? Of course it doesn't.

While it would clearly be disruptive, I seriously doubt it would put the professional photographer out of work. If anything it'll make it easier for a professional photographer to show why they are professional, and why amateurs are...amateur xD
 
I gave up trying to watch that video, the guy's monotone made me want to ring The Samaritans....
 
unless the camera is so clever it tells the tog where and when to stand then no it won't kill off the profession just help keep a healthy edge in the competition.
 
Total auto, always in focus....no thanks, il stick to the DSLR
 
Total auto, always if focus but still badly lit ;)

Photography is all about light and if a subject is not well lit the resulting image will still be pants. ;)
 
can I retire early then :-)
 
It's what a bridge camera will be in 20 years time. DSLRs will still be where they are now, just with some better tech and more lenses.

No one can honestly think Canon will be able to make a 10-500mm f/1 lens that small in 20 years right (it would have to be that with exceptional IQ to replace a dedicated DSLR)!? On the other hand a small bridge camera sensor with a basic long zoom would be pretty easy to do with technology in 20 years time. (would also explain the "everything in focus" line)
 
Dam that guy is dull.

As was said it doesn't matter how good the camera is if the person behind it isn't in the best place or not pointing where things are happening then it's worthless. But it does look good.
 
photography isnt the equipment..its the result of it

i dont think the professional photographer is going to disappear...he is also the manager, organiser, gofor, and creator of the final images...an all round facilitator

keep him in the cupboard...pay the money...put him back so someone else can use him

many serious photographers are interested in making the shot from beginning to end...this makes me think that film is still currently popular and the darkroom

its us hammer chewers who like toys
 
I'd be kind of amazed if we got twenty years into the furture and technology looked anything like we think it will now
 
i'm still waiting for the flying car i was supposed to be driving in the year 2000 :shrug:
 
Amp34 said:
It's what a bridge camera will be in 20 years time. DSLRs will still be where they are now, just with some better tech and more lenses.
Click to expand...
I don't think so. They are what they are. dSLR's are already quite archaic and the manufacturers can't keep selling them. Do you think you really need to update to a 24/48/64 (or larger) Mp sensor every few years? It won't make better pictures. In time you'll be happy and not need to buy the replacement for the D9 or D900 in a decade - and Canon and Nikon can't live on that.

As the dull clip suggested consumer pocket cameras are going into phones and they need to stimulate the market and get consumers to buy more stuff. I expect phenomenal changes in the next 20 years. If someone comes up with a 'better' functioning device then there will be movement towards it, I rather expect a consumer version of something like the Red Epic to be the 'camera of the future' myself.
 
DSLR photography's days may be numbered, but not professional photography.

I'm not sure that I'd want a camera where everything was constantly in focus...what about DOF and shutter speeds, what about long shutter speeds for dramatic skies or whatever?

Also, a numpty with a camera, is just that. A photographer with a camera is an artist.
 
The Professional Photographer has been diminishing in status, earning power, and specialisations open to him for many years.

While the very best will no doubt still have an important place in the world of communication. I am sure the post war trend towards part time professionals, and the use of other employees with photographic interests will continue to become the norm.

The recent survey showed a depressing level of status and income amongst the majority of photographers today.

I can not believe that photography as a specialism will continue to attract the quality of intake to ensue its place amongst the professional visual communication world.

It is not a question of "will there be Less photographs taken?" It will be more about who takes them.

Journalists and reporters will handle news and reportage.
Stylists and studio managers will handle advertising.
Part time camera operators will handle weddings under the direction of wedding organisers.
Even nature and landscape work will be handled by the primary professional specialist or scientist.

The role of photographer will be further reduced to that of a lesser role of technical operator such as is mostly the case in the film and television world.

The top positions will continue to move to the Visualisers and art directors and the equivalent of "lighting camera men"

Still, the life of a technician is not all bad.
 
zzzzzzzzzzzz, that video has put me to sleep!

In all honest, all it would do is make the idea that 'anyone with a DSLR is a photographer' idea worse, that's what would kill the profesional togger. Fact is a lot of people just don't realise how much better a profesional photo can be over their compact shots, or even mates dad with a DSLR that he got for christmas.
 
TBH photography is an art and no camera can change that, people aren't paying for professional photographers they are paying for the art that is created by that tog, this camera is typical of the future where its at the limit of what photography and video can do but its fantasy and will never happen.
 
i forgot to mention that the product of the future that will replace DSLR's is the hybrid camera.

once the hybrid camera's are properly kitted out with brilliant EVF's and a decent lens selection then that's when they take over.

of course spending ££££'s on lenses only to replace them would be ridicolous and so what they have to do is make adapters (which already exist) to allow DSLR lenses on hybrids. in the future DSLR's will be like medium format today...nobody needs it really unless your after that perfect IQ which even then can be done without a med format.

EVIL camera's are the future but they need to be designed appropriately.
 
Voyager said:
I don't think so. They are what they are. dSLR's are already quite archaic and the manufacturers can't keep selling them. Do you think you really need to update to a 24/48/64 (or larger) Mp sensor every few years? It won't make better pictures. In time you'll be happy and not need to buy the replacement for the D9 or D900 in a decade - and Canon and Nikon can't live on that.

As the dull clip suggested consumer pocket cameras are going into phones and they need to stimulate the market and get consumers to buy more stuff. I expect phenomenal changes in the next 20 years. If someone comes up with a 'better' functioning device then there will be movement towards it, I rather expect a consumer version of something like the Red Epic to be the 'camera of the future' myself.
Click to expand...

So how many photographers are going to get rid of their DSLR and 12-24, 50 f/1.4 and 300 f/2.8 and replace it with a camera with a single lens that is nowhere near as good as any of them? If yes then why aren't we all shooting with Bridge cameras? They have lenses that go from wide to 300+mm and their quality isn't bad, yet we don't, because the adaptability is poor.

Following on from that train of thought maybe we will have a super duper lens that will be able to do 10-500mm at f/1 and be sharp as a tack. Or not... Just look at how far (or not) lens design has come in 20 years. A large proportion of the lenses most of us use now were probably first released around 20 years ago, those that weren't aren't much different from those they replaced. The biggest change in the last 20 years has been Image Stabilisation. Look at 40 years, again there isn't a huge difference in lenses then either. There is no way we are going to have such a massive jump in lens tech in 20 years.

Alternatively look at todays bridge cameras and extrapolate what they do. That looks remarcably like what you see in that video. A single lens camera that shoots video and has no DoF...

We may not have DSLRs as we know them now in 20 years but we will still have interchangeable lenses at the least.:)
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
The Professional Photographer has been diminishing in status, earning power, and specialisations open to him for many years.

While the very best will no doubt still have an important place in the world of communication. I am sure the post war trend towards part time professionals, and the use of other employees with photographic interests will continue to become the norm.

The recent survey showed a depressing level of status and income amongst the majority of photographers today.

I can not believe that photography as a specialism will continue to attract the quality of intake to ensue its place amongst the professional visual communication world.

It is not a question of "will there be Less photographs taken?" It will be more about who takes them.

Journalists and reporters will handle news and reportage.
Stylists and studio managers will handle advertising.
Part time camera operators will handle weddings under the direction of wedding organisers.
Even nature and landscape work will be handled by the primary professional specialist or scientist.

The role of photographer will be further reduced to that of a lesser role of technical operator such as is mostly the case in the film and television world.

The top positions will continue to move to the Visualisers and art directors and the equivalent of "lighting camera men"

Still, the life of a technician is not all bad.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Just look at painters and other artists. There are still a large number of professionals and dedicated amateurs out there, even though film has been around for over a century. Yes photography will change, we've seen that over the last 100 years, when only professionals had cameras and people had to go them to get a photo of yourself, but it will still be a prominent part of our lives.

Yes there will be a reduced number of people doing it as a specialism but there will still be plenty of people making a living out of it.

How many people have a painting on their wall? How many have painted it themselves? Exactly...:)
 
Amp34 said:
So how many photographers are going to get rid of their DSLR and 12-24, 50 f/1.4 and 300 f/2.8 and replace it with a camera with a single lens that is nowhere near as good as any of them? If yes then why aren't we all shooting with Bridge cameras? They have lenses that go from wide to 300+mm and their quality isn't bad, yet we don't, because the adaptability is poor.
Click to expand...
I'm fairly sure I didn't suggest there would be a move to any sort of 'bridge' camera....
Amp34 said:
We may not have DSLRs as we know them now in 20 years but we will still have interchangeable lenses at the least.:)
Click to expand...
Although that IS pretty much what I suggested.... :cuckoo:
 
mastertrinity said:
i forgot to mention that the product of the future that will replace DSLR's is the hybrid camera.

once the hybrid camera's are properly kitted out with brilliant EVF's and a decent lens selection then that's when they take over.

of course spending ££££'s on lenses only to replace them would be ridicolous and so what they have to do is make adapters (which already exist) to allow DSLR lenses on hybrids. in the future DSLR's will be like medium format today...nobody needs it really unless your after that perfect IQ which even then can be done without a med format.

EVIL camera's are the future but they need to be designed appropriately.
Click to expand...
Like the Red Epic?
 
AliB said:
Total auto, always if focus but still badly lit ;)

Photography is all about light and if a subject is not well lit the resulting image will still be pants. ;)
Click to expand...

I agree with Alib..

But I do think the camera of the future will be far simpler than it is today.. I honestly think with the technology we are starting to see, we will only have one lens for everything. You will still be able to change lenses but only to replace it for a higher quality one as we do now.. Did anyone see the documentry regarding super diamonds??
 
MagicMynx said:
I'm not sure that I'd want a camera where everything was constantly in focus...what about DOF and shutter speeds, what about long shutter speeds for dramatic skies or whatever?
Click to expand...

I think you may have missed a point here, or at least been misdirected by the presentation.

Suppose we were talking about a massively parallel imaging system such as this one being developed at Stanford University, which captures a full 3D representation of the scene - all in focus?

You then slice and dice the data you've gathered to assemble the image you want. The techical challenges are in the storage and processing of gargantuan amounts of information.

You have complete control of the depth of field in PP.... you want an asymmetric DoF map with everything contained within a roughly kidney-shaped volume about 3m wide and 1.5m deep and an edge radius of 0.6m, starting at 1.9m from the film plane to be in focus (with a nick out of the left hand edge to defocus Aunt Flo's ugly ankles)? You got it.

You want to simulate the DoF of a Noctilux 50mm f/0.95 wide open? Fine.

You're also gathering all this information along a t axis - time. Like Astronomy photographers do now, you use the PP software (perhaps onboard the camera) to stack gigapixel images shot over the course of 5 minutes into a single, perfectly exposed photograph.

You want a slice of that data set that represents 1/250 second exposure. There you go. Hmm... that's a bit too short, I want some more motion blur... knock the shutter speed down to 1/60 sec, using the same source data and the entire scene is re-imaged post-capture.
 
If the public's standards continue to decline at the rate they are doing, then the answer is "Yes", with or without that Canon idea :)

The guys who are in trouble, are the guys who document moments and "cover" things, where the artistic or creative content of the image is not what's important.

The guys who create imagery which has some creative input, well their jobs just got a LOT harder, simply down to the Infinite Monkeys premise.

The monkeys are now shooting at 60FPS, their odds are improving all the time.
 
Voyager said:
I'm fairly sure I didn't suggest there would be a move to any sort of 'bridge' camera....

Although that IS pretty much what I suggested.... :cuckoo:
Click to expand...

Then why were you disagreeing with my first post?:thinking:

That camera shown is a camera without a removeable lens, a bridge camera if you will. We will still have DSLR's in some form, they may be smaller and they may not actually have the single lens reflex part but they will be very similar in function.
 
Amp34 said:
I disagree. Just look at painters and other artists. There are still a large number of professionals and dedicated amateurs out there, even though film has been around for over a century. Yes photography will change, we've seen that over the last 100 years, when only professionals had cameras and people had to go them to get a photo of yourself, but it will still be a prominent part of our lives.

Yes there will be a reduced number of people doing it as a specialism but there will still be plenty of people making a living out of it.

How many people have a painting on their wall? How many have painted it themselves? Exactly...:)
Click to expand...

Painters and other Artists are perhaps a good example. Of the thousands who have studied and gained degrees and other qualifications over the years only a tiny few can make any thing like a decent living by selling their works. This has been true since the days of Great masters, and even more so today.

photographic schools have turned out young photographers in the thousands since the war. Again very few have or can make a decent living from it.

The majority of qualified artists and photographers who earn a decent salary are teachers and lecturers, and a majority of those are part time.
About the only people earning any thing like good money in the art world are Graphic artists and designers.

Art with a big Ais a very precarious living and always has been.

The equipment we use has little to do with this, It is more the beliefs and attitudes in the market place.
 
The idea of huge MP (or even GP - Gigapixels) is self defeating because you would need computing systems several orders of magnitude faster than we have today to just process the images.

Can you imagine trying to process RAW files of 100MB or so?

I hope that any real innovation will come with sensors with far less noise and higher sensitivites than we have today.

THEN you could have real HDR in camera using the increased pixel count not to produce super large images but to produce over exposed, normal and under exposed pixels which could then be combined in camera to produce HDR with a vastly increased Dynamic range and all in a single shot.
 
petersmart said:
The idea of huge MP (or even GP - Gigapixels) is self defeating because you would need computing systems several orders of magnitude faster than we have today to just process the images.

Can you imagine trying to process RAW files of 100MB or so?

I hope that any real innovation will come with sensors with far less noise and higher sensitivites than we have today.

THEN you could have real HDR in camera using the increased pixel count not to produce super large images but to produce over exposed, normal and under exposed pixels which could then be combined in camera to produce HDR with a vastly increased Dynamic range and all in a single shot.
Click to expand...

I am sure vastly increased dynamic range will be the way of things in the future.
I can see little reason why a sensor could not be made that could respond to moon light illumination and as bright as sunlight at the same time.

Such a shot could not be view in its entirety as no screen nor eye could cope with such a brightness range.
However setting an ISO speed would be totally redundant. As all light ranges would be equally covered.
 
Amp34 said:
Then why were you disagreeing with my first post?:thinking:.
Click to expand...
Because manu's want people to 'get rid of' their current cameras. It is how they will sell new kit and stay in business.
Amp34 said:
That camera shown is a camera without a removeable lens, a bridge camera if you will. We will still have DSLR's in some form, they may be smaller and they may not actually have the single lens reflex part but they will be very similar in function.
Click to expand...
But I was replying to your comment 'DSLRs will still be where they are now, just with some better tech and more lenses.' not the the vaporware flim-flam, dull, extended Canon advert.

If we don't have cameras with a reflex mirror (and I agree that is likely as it costs money, weight and space) they won't be dSLR's will they? :bang:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top