[d.bradley]

There is all this talk of the Casio Ex-F1 with its full-res 60fps shooting ability, and talk of the integration of video into DSLR's. Coupled with the ultra-high-res sensors and advances in AF technology, are we looking at the end of 'still photography' as we know it?

How long will it be before trained monkeys go out, put a camera on a tripod, point in the general vicinity of a subject and let the machine do all the work?

- No need for tracking ability...just zoom out a little and crop, the sensor captures more than enough detail
- No need for focus...even if your predictive AF didn't lock on just right (which it would 99.9% of the time), you'll be able to change the focus and DOF after the fact
- No need for good timing...your camera captured the 30 seconds before and the 30 seconds after the perfect moment.
- No need for adjustments on camera, since so much data is preserved in the raw format, your image editing software will be able to automatically correct for any mistakes in colour, white balance, exposure after the fact.

The images we're going to see coming out of this technology will be breathtaking....things we may not have been capture without it. But photography won't be about capturing and being in a moment anymore. It will be about getting....meh...close enough. And what does it mean when this photograph sits in an art exhibition across the hall from shots taken with a "regular" DSLR, or 35mm a film camera with a 35 year old lens, or a medium format camera? Can we really hold these "new" images in the same regard as the "old" ones?

I know for a fact that advances in technology, placing artistic tools in the hands of the masses, does not necessarily mean everyone will suddenly become successful artists. Video technology has advanced incredibly in the last 15 years, and what comes out of it? Youtube, and the local news channel that never sets their white balance correctly on their $30,000 HD cameras.

We're going to see a lot more people carrying significantly more powerful artistic tools, and the result will be the same as that of the video realm. There is going to be a lot more junk that people will call art, and these people will be ignorantly proud of it. Is this a bad thing? Not at all. Everyone is entitled to do what makes them happy. Unfortunately it's so easy to publish everything these days that it makes finding the TRUE art that much more difficult.

Along with the junk, we will see more truly talented artists bidding for recognition as well, with images pouring out from every corner of the globe. But then we have to come full circle: the images they produce will be made from this automagic technology that takes away so much of the skill, and the thought behind the images.

But I feel that all hope is not lost. I believe that a large part of photography is the ability to put yourself in beautiful and dramatic situations...to chase an image and a subject, to see things from a perspective that nobody else has seen. To juxtapose themes, to convey stories and messages. To teach, to challenge and to inspire. Technology cannot take control of the human and emotional part of image making.

But what happens when are duped? When you find out that an image you thought was so moving, that has inspired you and changed your way of looking at life...you find out it was taken in haste by some dude who left the camera around his neck running for six hours a day until one day some data mining software told him he accidentally created something artistic?

The simple question remains: Will this be the end of still photography as we know it?

[code4code5]

It's been said before and it is something that I truly believe. It's not the equipment. It's the photographer.

The beauty of a photograph is in the vision that it captures, whether it's a landscape that demonstrates God's true glory or a portrait that puts the subject's emotions in you hand. I agree that photography is artistic and the majority of photographers will still see art when others might see a picture. "Picture takers" will never be able to create the kind of images that a photographer can. Has anyone ever seen a camera phone shot that prompted a "wow?" No, because as many cameras as are in the world, only a handful of gifted people, can make their equipment sing.

And no, I don't think I'm one of those gifted people. That's why I'm here, because I care enough about the art to take the time and learn.

[Tbear]

There is all this talk of the Casio Ex-F1 with its full-res 60fps shooting ability, and talk of the integration of video into DSLR's. Coupled with the ultra-high-res sensors and advances in AF technology, are we looking at the end of 'still photography' as we know it?

How long will it be before trained monkeys go out, put a camera on a tripod, point in the general vicinity of a subject and let the machine do all the work?

- No need for tracking ability...just zoom out a little and crop, the sensor captures more than enough detail
- No need for focus...even if your predictive AF didn't lock on just right (which it would 99.9% of the time), you'll be able to change the focus and DOF after the fact
- No need for good timing...your camera captured the 30 seconds before and the 30 seconds after the perfect moment.
- No need for adjustments on camera, since so much data is preserved in the raw format, your image editing software will be able to automatically correct for any mistakes in colour, white balance, exposure after the fact.

The images we're going to see coming out of this technology will be breathtaking....things we may not have been capture without it. But photography won't be about capturing and being in a moment anymore. It will be about getting....meh...close enough. And what does it mean when this photograph sits in an art exhibition across the hall from shots taken with a "regular" DSLR, or 35mm a film camera with a 35 year old lens, or a medium format camera? Can we really hold these "new" images in the same regard as the "old" ones?

I know for a fact that advances in technology, placing artistic tools in the hands of the masses, does not necessarily mean everyone will suddenly become successful artists. Video technology has advanced incredibly in the last 15 years, and what comes out of it? Youtube, and the local news channel that never sets their white balance correctly on their $30,000 HD cameras.

We're going to see a lot more people carrying significantly more powerful artistic tools, and the result will be the same as that of the video realm. There is going to be a lot more junk that people will call art, and these people will be ignorantly proud of it. Is this a bad thing? Not at all. Everyone is entitled to do what makes them happy. Unfortunately it's so easy to publish everything these days that it makes finding the TRUE art that much more difficult.

Along with the junk, we will see more truly talented artists bidding for recognition as well, with images pouring out from every corner of the globe. But then we have to come full circle: the images they produce will be made from this automagic technology that takes away so much of the skill, and the thought behind the images.

But I feel that all hope is not lost. I believe that a large part of photography is the ability to put yourself in beautiful and dramatic situations...to chase an image and a subject, to see things from a perspective that nobody else has seen. To juxtapose themes, to convey stories and messages. To teach, to challenge and to inspire. Technology cannot take control of the human and emotional part of image making.

But what happens when are duped? When you find out that an image you thought was so moving, that has inspired you and changed your way of looking at life...you find out it was taken in haste by some dude who left the camera around his neck running for six hours a day until one day some data mining software told him he accidentally created something artistic?

The simple question remains: Will this be the end of still photography as we know it?

I'm sure the technology will be of help to inferior photographers occasionally. However, when someone is shooting in poor light or the composition is off, it won't matter even if the camera can shoot at a million frames a second. Ultimately, a photographer will still need reasonable skill to produce a quality photo.

[carpents]

The simple question remains: Will this be the end of still photography as we know it?

Well written, Damian.

I say eventually, yes.

The naysayers will come in here and say how it is the same thing that people said when light meters were built into cameras, but there is a difference. Such things as open-aperture metering, shutter/aperture priority modes, auto-focus, and light meters integrated into the camera changed the craft of photography - not the art. This is where the argument that it is the photographer, not the equipment, is correct.

Just look at what has happened to making prints. In our digital world the task has become something akin to printing out your Week 17 football picks or your school homework. I have yet to hear of a single artist who used an enlarger to print out a digital image like you would in a darkroom. I'm so dumb to the concept that it took me 60 seconds to come up with the words to describe it - and this is because my first foray into photography was digital.

So I am one of many who think that your concept of 60fps capturing a continuous, focus-correctable, color-correctable, DOF-adjustable still image isn't the same core art that we do with our K10D, *ist D, or Spotmatic. I'm sure the time will come, and the small group of resisters will be similar in percentage and persistence to those making real darkroom prints today. Maybe by that time I will have finally made my first print.

[jgredline]

It's been said before and it is something that I truly believe. It's not the equipment. It's the photographer.

The beauty of a photograph is in the vision that it captures, whether it's a landscape that demonstrates God's true glory or a portrait that puts the subject's emotions in you hand. I agree that photography is artistic and the majority of photographers will still see art when others might see a picture. "Picture takers" will never be able to create the kind of images that a photographer can. Has anyone ever seen a camera phone shot that prompted a "wow?" No, because as many cameras as are in the world, only a handful of gifted people, can make their equipment sing.

And no, I don't think I'm one of those gifted people. That's why I'm here, because I care enough about the art to take the time and learn.

Well said!....
I liken it to Formula 1 where it is said the driver had less to do with the speed of the car than the car...This year no drivers aids in formula1 but guess what...I will bet that the same drivers will still be at the top...

I will be truly impressed when a camera can point, focus and shoot all on its ''own''...

[Stratman]

Well said!....
I liken it to Formula 1 where it is said the driver had less to do with the speed of the car than the car...This year no drivers aids in formula1 but guess what...I will bet that the same drivers will still be at the top...

I agree, even with all of the electroninc aids F1 cars have, it is the driver that can keep his car closest to THE EDGE, and NOT lose it that wins the race. Senna, Stewart, Fangio, Schumi, would win regardless of what aids or not their cars had.

A great photographer < which I am certainly NOT > can make a stunning image regardless of the camera in his hands.

[marcdsgn]

Let's imaging someone has created a hydraulic hammer: At the flick of a switch, it swings up and down on a pivot with enough pressure to hammer in a nail.

Now imagine you're a professional carpenter and you read a forum-post that asks: "are we looking at the end of carpentry as we know it?"

[SpecialK]

There is all this talk of the Casio Ex-F1 with its full-res 60fps shooting ability, and talk of the integration of video into DSLR's. Coupled with the ultra-high-res sensors and advances in AF technology, are we looking at the end of 'still photography' as we know it?

How long will it be before trained monkeys go out, put a camera on a tripod, point in the general vicinity of a subject and let the machine do all the work?

They already do. Look at Canikon FPS rates...:-)

The simple question remains: Will this be the end of still photography as we know it?

No.

[Marcus]

The end of photography as we know it? I don't think so. Just the beginning of more bad photos.

PC Photo had a similar article like this. I read it today. In the 1980s, SLR was the king. In the 1990's, here came compact cameras. People had thought that the SLR as a platform was in fact, going to die. Some thought that accesories such as tripods, bellows, interchangable lenses, and so forth had met their end. Then, here comes digital. This definitely would be the nail in SLR's coffin... But now, in 2008, look how the tables have turned. DSLR is alive and kicking. Will it win out yet again? I think so. Why?

Post processing isn't the general public's cup of tea, and post processing will have to be involved in this technology significantly for an end result. I don't think there's a camera company that wants to change the way you take photos, and definitely not for the general public. But maybe, a video company wants to change what you do with a video camera. If anything, I think this technology would not be used in *ordinary* photography because most people want the simplest route between two points, a straight line. But news teams, and other video productions would probably benefit from it, since they would be inclined to post process. But the post processing could be so tedious that it might not even be worth the hassle.

Also, I don't think photography as we know it would die because that would mean flash photography would die. And I don't want continuous lighting the way video has it. For portrait photography, it simply wouldn't make sense to set it at 60 frames, leave the thing rolling and afterward, cherry pick a few nice shots. How would you pose a person? How long would they have to hold a pose? Video captures for a portrait can't work.

For sports photography, possibly it could work. But if say, Mr or Mrs Pro Shooter just let the thing roll for 2 to 3 hours, they'd still have to cherry pick through THOUSANDS of photos.

[stewart_photo]

(snip) The simple question remains: Will this be the end of still photography as we know it?

People have been asking this question for decades, just about every single time something new comes along. In the past, it was in-camera metering, programmed exposure modes, auto-focus , and, most recently, digital. At the same time, I have just as many clients today as twenty-five years ago. And, interestingly, some of my very best clients throughout the years have been those who admit to owning the latest whizzbang cameras.

All the various whizzbang additions or modifications to automobiles over the years have not changed the rules-of-the-road or eliminated accidents. The best drivers are still those who take the time to learn how to drive properly and care enough to do it well every time. Some try their hand at professional driving, with the best of those still having very successful careers (perhaps more profitable than ever). Ultimately, the same is true for photography.

What will the future hold? To be honest, from a professional perspective, I don't care. I'll continue doing photography and will integrate whatever the future holds into that. At the same time, I'll continue to offer the quality, reliability, and professionalism, paying clients expect and most others cannot, or will not, offer.

But even from a non-professional perspective, I still think my photography will always offer something far more than just the latest whizzbang automated camera alone. Because, in the end, it will always be the person behind the camera, not the camera itself, taking the pictures.

stewart

[Lowell Goudge]

There is all this talk of the Casio Ex-F1 with its full-res 60fps shooting ability, and talk of the integration of video into DSLR's. Coupled with the ultra-high-res sensors and advances in AF technology, are we looking at the end of 'still photography' as we know it?

Anyone who understands photography should recognize that the above mentioned performance cannot replace still life, because 60 frames per second means a frame every 1/60th of a second.

Inherently that implies a shutter speed in excess of 1/60 how do you stop a lens down in low light, and take a 1/10 exposure controlling the depth of field when the exposure exceeds 6 frames in the camera. Simple answer, you can't therefore the end is not near

While it may with some really good lenses replace or supliment certain types of photography, I don't see it. What I see, and what many have seen before is the best aspects get incorporated into DSLRs or what ever replaces them, but I simply don't see still life photography as coming to an end.

We already have relitively good video at 30 frames per second, and have had this for years, yet still life has remained. simply doubling the frame rate is not a back breaker for the art.

[TaoMaas]

We already have relitively good video at 30 frames per second, and have had this for years, yet still life has remained. simply doubling the frame rate is not a back breaker for the art.

That's it right there. Just because a camera has the capability to shoot more than 1 fps, doesn't mean a photographer is forced to hold down the shutter release until their memory card is filled up. How many discussions have we had on here about Pentax's lower fps rate? That's really all video is...higher fps. Don't need it? Then don't use it. It's as simple as that. I work in video, but my main love is still photography. It's been my experience that the process of shooting video is very much the same as shooting still pics, with a few extra variables thrown in. But good composition is still good compostion...proper exposure is still proper exposure...and a bad white balance almost always sucks. lol Like it or not, there will probably be a merging of still photography and video. You can thank computers and the internet for that. As computers replace magazines and newspapers as our principal information source, we'll no longer be limited to using still pictures to illustrate stories. I've been trying to imagine where this merging might lead in regards to how we amateurs capture the memories and images of our lives. When we document our children at play around our houses, will we basically shoot high resolution video, then go back and pick a particularly telling still frame to display on the wall? Or will digital picture frames be the norm so that instead of one frame, we display a small 1 or 2 second snippet of action...one in which we don't just see our child's smile frozen in time, but maybe see them also look up, recognize us, and then see the smile break over their face? Personally, I think it'd drive me bonkers to see something like that playing over and over and over again on the wall. The digital frame might have to hold hundreds of such memories to avoid being boring. So I'm not convinced that the end of still photography is near. But it's definitely about to evolve, I believe.

[Marcus]

When we document our children at play around our houses, will we basically shoot high resolution video, then go back and pick a particularly telling still frame to display on the wall?

That's too complicated for most soccer moms.

Or will digital picture frames be the norm so that instead of one frame, we display a small 1 or 2 second snippet of action...one in which we don't just see our child's smile frozen in time, but maybe see them also look up, recognize us, and then see the smile break over their face? Personally, I think it'd drive me bonkers to see something like that playing over and over and over again on the wall. The digital frame might have to hold hundreds of such memories to avoid being boring.

I agree. It's like a screensaver. Its gets boring eventually. When you think aboit it, it's like having a .gif on your wall or coffee table. Cool at first but predictable and boring over time. Slideshows get old quick.

Personally, I'd like a more tactile medium. Digital frames are too expensive and really, they don't make a significant visual impression on a room. I want my room still. Don't want to come across as a snob, but I think a lot of people do not have a clue how to arrange photos in a room from an aesthetic point of view, for example, in your living room, your den, etc. Instead, they arrange according to sentiment and it ends up cluttered with too many photos. Framed photos are everywhere. Frames aren't uniform, different sizes, different types of frames all sitting on one coffee table, big frames, small frames, metal frames, wood frames... Memories, memories, memories. Lots of memories but aesthetically, a room cluttered with photos.

With that being said, can you imagine a person, with 5 or 6 digital frames in one room and they are all constant slideshows? Yikes!

[ve2vfd]

My personnal opinoin...

The tools don't make the cabinet, the carpenter does... the fancy million dollar fire truck doesn't put out the fire, the fireman does... and the fancy camera doesn't make the picture, the artfull eye of the photographer does.

The funny thing is that the SAME buzz was in the air when auto focus, auto everything cameras came out... people were claiming photography was dead. Then the same happened again when digital cameras and programs like photoshop came out...

Personally I think that an easier to use camera can only benefit our hobby as it attracts more people, and it's likely some will find an interest to "photography" as oposed to taking snapshots.

The bottom line is that someone who has a good artful eye can take awesome pictures with an oatmeal can converted into a pinhole camera... a fancy camera may take a "nicer" picture, but I can't make a better photographer.

Just my 2 cents worth...

Pat

[TaoMaas]

With that being said, can you imagine a person, with 5 or 6 digital frames in one room and they are all constant slideshows? Yikes!

Seems to me that it would kinda be like living in the electronics section at WalMart. lol I think that we'll see folks making a choice between traditional prints and digital frames, much like we choose color or b&w today. And probably for much the same reasons. Black & white is much more symbolic and we read more into the picture. I think something similar goes on when we look at still pics vs video. We study still pics more closely and they often carry an emotional kick that requires very skillful video to duplicate.