Actually the more accurate number of shots (assuming that you are actively learning) to become relatively proficient is closer to 10,000. So yes digital is a much more efficient system for learning to be a good photographer...
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
The future of photography...
- Thread starter VirtualRain
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Actually the more accurate number of shots (assuming that you are actively learning) to become relatively proficient is closer to 10,000. So yes digital is a much more efficient system for learning to be a good photographer...
Come on, never say "never." I'm sure there were illustrators, wood cut artists, and copper plate engravers who said photography and photoengraving would never replace them in the fields of newspaper and catalog illustration.
Film at this point is a hard case to make outside of the fine art market, and there, it's like arguing the difference between oil paints and acrylics. If you conflate "artist" and "fine art," well, your statement isn't that far off base. But there's plenty of photographic art taking place in arenas where the notion of film is laughable. Even if you shoot film for a magazine layout, the art director is going to digitize it, and most likely manipulate it in Photoshop. How that shot is illuminated will have a far greater bearing on the final result than the difference between film and digital.
It's not whether CGI will replace "real" movie sets- CGI enables things that could never be done (or affordably done) on a movie set. If you want the actor to cross the room and flop onto the sofa... a "real" set is more convenient to work with than green screen. But what is a "real" set anyway? Backdrops painted to no more than the level of detail required for the shot, cardboard furniture, tromp l'oeil techniques at every turn... Artifice is artifice, and whatever works, at the lowest cost, is what will be used.
And while an iPhone camera does not measure up to a FF DSLR and isn't ever likely to deliver the features and controls of pro gear... the iPhone camera is orders of magnitude better than the Brownies and Instamatics of my youth. More people are taking more photos than ever before, because their cameras can deliver results they aren't embarrassed to share.
Yes, really. But only for certain artistic reasons.
Didn't you read my link: http://www.theguardian.com/film/2014/jul/31/quentin-tarantino-christopher-nolan-kodak-film
----------
Yes, I am only talking about art.
----------
In commercial photography film has barely a leg to stand on. Digital is godsend.
Yes I did. It doesn't support your statement. Some movie makers want a guarantee to continue using film stock because they prefer it. To extrapolate from this that ALL artists want film is just ludicrous. OK, you didn't say all, but this is the implication - artists use film, non artists use digital.
Even Sebastiao Salgado moved to digital some years ago. Guess he's not an artist though? And the list can go on, and on, and on......
People use, and artists use, whatever media and tools they want. I don't think there is an invisible line drawn somewhere that you cross and magically become an "artist" based on the media you use.
We've had discussions about mobile photography etc in other threads. I know you have seen work that is being done. I know you know better than to make this statement. It's just rediculous.
Last edited:
I don't think you are familiar with real movie sets à la Kubrick or the recent sets built by Mel Gibson.
For Full Metal Jacket Kubrick had real buildings torn down, instead of using already destroyed ones or ridiculous cardboard sets. You might want to google the other crazy sets and props Kubrick had built.
For Apocalypto Gibson had built a Mayan city from scratch. Even the paint for the buildings was made by hand, as it would've been made back then.
The "movie sets" you are referring to are not art. They are commercial garbage. No harm lies in replacing those with CGI.
----------
I didn't say that all artists use film and I agree with your post.
One day smartphone sensor will have similar specs to what's in our DSLR today. But with an 8x crop factor, it'll be a while. Research investment in sensor tech is lower and possibly more difficult as were seeing advancements going at about doubling every 4 years (roughly one stop s/n per generation). A safe estimate might be around 20 years for the technologies to match up. By that time the dedicated cameras will also have that 5 stop advantage...
But the real problem will be lenses. Advancements in optics are much slower. The iPhone lens is what? 4 elements in 4 groups? I don't see them making much more complicated lenses if they want it to fit in your pockets. This will surely the limit sharpness. Secondly, changing field of view and having control over depth of field are not trivial problems.
Smartphones will make p&s cameras a rarity but I don't see them replacing dedicated cameras for enthusiasts and pros. That is if things continue the way they are, some new concepts could change that.
So you are saying that people that use digital are not artists now?
And arguing that CGI isn't Art? Sin City made a bit of money. So did Spy Kids. So did Star Wars prequels, and every single superhero movie you have watched. There is a LOT more CGI out there than you think, because you only see it when it is bad or obvious.
Wrong on both counts.
But film will never replace cave paintings for TRUE artists. You don't know what color reproduction is until you've crushed a zillion red ants and mixed it with mammoth blood to get the perfect shade of reddish brown.
----------
No, I think it will be computer simulation of the better lens, but I guess time will tell. One of the things holding up sensor development is the expense. You can't do a process shrink because the size is fixed. This is the exact problem they want to address.
No, I didn't say or mean that.
----------
Money doesn't equal quality or art. I don't know what Spy Kids is. The new Star Wars is pathetic, so are most superhero movies, except for maybe Nolan's Batman and Nolan very scarcely uses CGI.
----------
It very much looks like that is what you said and meant.
I consider myself an artist in multiple fields. I used to use film. I now use digital. I was VERY happy to make the swap when I got a D70 back in 2004. So for me, as an artist, digital did in fact replace film.
CGI can and does replace movie sets also.
Of course it does, and that's why I am saying the lenses of the future will be much wider (in diameter). It means that the manufacturer can use even larger sensors.
-------
The points I have been trying to make are as follows:
The cheapest way for Canon and Nikon to evolve from film to digital was to incorporate electrical components on the existing body and lenses, most which are limited to sensor sizes around 35mm. The cameras of the future won't have the same body and lens designs or shapes. I imagine that some of the components that are now in the bodies will be installed in the lenses, and the later would not necessarily be a narrow tube attached to the body. Instead of having lens elements moving back and forth, why not having a sensor and shutter assembly moving back and forth inside the lens? In my view, the limiting factors are the very old body and lens shapes or designs. The SLR of today will become obsolete, but the means to take photos will expand.
Maybe?
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2426284,00.asp
Last edited:
Despite all the yak yak about using a phone camera or a top of the line (D)SLR (and everything in between), and this piece of gear and technique or that, the essence of photography is (and will remain) capturing a moment with what you have available.
[URL=http://s1306.photobucket.com/user/AjarnMick/media/Sport/Paddy%20Morton%20Patong%20is%20beaten%20by%20Yedu%20Ventrapatts%20throw%20Michael%20Way%20_zps59vx5sar.jpg.html]
[/URL]
[URL=http://s1306.photobucket.com/user/AjarnMick/media/Sport/Victorious%20Villagers%20Michael%20Way_zpsurdafucy.jpg.html]
[/URL]
[URL=http://s1306.photobucket.com/user/AjarnMick/media/Sport/Paddy%20Morton%20Patong%20is%20beaten%20by%20Yedu%20Ventrapatts%20throw%20Michael%20Way%20_zps59vx5sar.jpg.html]
[/URL][URL=http://s1306.photobucket.com/user/AjarnMick/media/Sport/Victorious%20Villagers%20Michael%20Way_zpsurdafucy.jpg.html]
[/URL]Whether I'm familiar with the examples cited (Kubrick and Gibson) or not (and I am), you are citing outliers; exceptions, not the rule. Personally, when making a broad statement, I'd ignore such examples in favor of what's typical.
Can movie sets be great art, and can CGI be crap? Of course. And as you admit, there are movie sets that are crap, and CGI that is great art. So why hang onto the notion that there's a "real" and "fake," legitimate or illegitimate, in a business that is entirely built of illusion?
It's all about the willing suspension of disbelief. Poor-quality work may be a distraction that can break the illusion, or prevent it entirely - and that's true whether we're talking about scenery or the actors that chew it.
Art. Artifice. Artificial. If you want real, you go sit on a mountaintop and experience the reality of it - the breeze, the sounds, the aching muscles and drying sweat, textures, scents, sunlight and shadows, temperature, flora, fauna, stone and sky.... You want art? You sit in a chair and absorb Ansel Adams' or Claude Monet's or Aaron Copeland's, or John Muir's, Akira Kurosawa's, Auguste Rodin's, Hayao Miyazaki's, Martha Graham's, William Shakespeare's, Louis Comfort Tiffany's, Robert Frost's, Frank Lloyd Wright's... impressions of nature.
You are putting the medium before the message. All we ask of art is that it speaks to us, that it moves us, that it inspires, terrifies, enraptures, enrages, comforts, transports... the artist is a person who can conceive of a way to do that and who has the mastery to deliver what he/she imagined; so that their work can capture the hearts and minds of those who experience it.
This is certainly an interesting discussion for a photographer. My take is over the last 10 years (longer than the iphone) as cameras have been included on cell phones two things have occurred.
- it has opened the door to capture more of every day life and current events
- it has lowered the bar for photography as an art, as opposed to photography as a medium
- it has eaten into the p/s and dslr markets
The third point about dslrs is interesting. My take is unless the dslr buyer is serious about photography, there seems to be a thought of pattern of "why buy a dslr to potentially get a great picture, when an okay picture is more than acceptable". The thing is one has to be spend proportionately more to show the differences between a dslr and an iphone. An iphone produces a perfectly acceptable snap in the right conditions.
Canon does not seem to think the dslr market is going away anytime soon as they produce lenses such as this (a great pic from canonrumors.com), although no doubt the dynamics are changing:
- it has opened the door to capture more of every day life and current events
- it has lowered the bar for photography as an art, as opposed to photography as a medium
- it has eaten into the p/s and dslr markets
The third point about dslrs is interesting. My take is unless the dslr buyer is serious about photography, there seems to be a thought of pattern of "why buy a dslr to potentially get a great picture, when an okay picture is more than acceptable". The thing is one has to be spend proportionately more to show the differences between a dslr and an iphone. An iphone produces a perfectly acceptable snap in the right conditions.
Canon does not seem to think the dslr market is going away anytime soon as they produce lenses such as this (a great pic from canonrumors.com), although no doubt the dynamics are changing:
Attachments
If you ask that question then you are clearly not understanding his post. What he means is that the artist world is a heavy user of film which isn't strange since artists are more about "the feeling". Think of the famous phrase "it's not about the destination, it's about the journey". Also, film and digital are different things with different characteristics. What artists do is take use of those characteristics. Some will be all digital, some will be all analog and some will mix the two.
You are talking movies where it is already very debatable whether they are art or not. You might want to use some examples that are not prone to such a debate.
And the exact problem they can't address because it would mean defying the laws of physics.
If a smartphone wants to outdo a DSLR it has to become one, not only in functionality but also in size, since you cannot defy the laws of physics. Smartphones the size of a DSLR is not going to happen. Smartphones the size of a Fuji X100 neither. Let's also not forget things like ergonomics and the fact that you can't do everything with a 35mm equivalent lens (macro, astrology, telelens for example...you'll end up with a setup similar in size to what you'd get with a DSLR). It's not realistic to think that a smartphone is going to replace any of those (larger) cameras. It might take a portion of that because people find the 35mm lens to be enough (reason why many jumped on the X100 series) but that's all it will do.
What we're going to see in the future is that the smartphone is going to be a companion to the camera just like the smartwatch is the companion to the smartphone right now. Manufacturers like Fuji and Sony are already on to this. They allow the iPhone to control the camera via an app and wifi (even with liveview). Sony even has a special unit that is merely a lens with a sensor, the smartphone is the controller.
I think the root problem here is that you don't need an SLR. Most people don't need a high end SLR, in fact very few do.
I've told so many people that NO ONE will know what SLR body you used to take a photo. After the image is processed and displayed on a typical electronic screen a $250 used SLR or a $3,500 new SLR is pretty much the same
BTW I know of one smart student in one of my classes who came in with a 30 year old Minolta SRT101 film camera he bought for $80. He shoots film and has it scanned and gets digital files of very high quality. He gets the DOF effects of a full frame sensor and he pays, even with the price of film and scanning, nearly nothing. One can do very high quality work this way for less money then some people pay for a camera bag.
My daughter is doing good work with an older 10MP Canon SLR I bought for her for $200. What matters most not the equipment
I also wouldn't wanna discount the inertia some artists have with their medium of choice. They may be making money on what they do now, so why change? Takes guts to do that, and work. But some do it; check out http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/10/the-ipad-is-an-artists-canvas-for-david-hockney/?_r=0
I'm not being cynical; they get the effect they want and the process itself may impart some meaning. As an idea translates to an expression the vehicle for that matters. Some musicians like to make vinyl; the sound is different, and you record with an eye (ear) to how what you record will be expressed. David Bryne wrote some interesting stuff on that; he's one of the adaptable artists who can probably output on eight track and make sense.
Finally, film has some advantages that have to do with perceived permanence, and face it, copy protection. I'm not saying that some artists resist digital because it can be pirated easily, but with some I know it's a factor.
I'm not being cynical; they get the effect they want and the process itself may impart some meaning. As an idea translates to an expression the vehicle for that matters. Some musicians like to make vinyl; the sound is different, and you record with an eye (ear) to how what you record will be expressed. David Bryne wrote some interesting stuff on that; he's one of the adaptable artists who can probably output on eight track and make sense.
Finally, film has some advantages that have to do with perceived permanence, and face it, copy protection. I'm not saying that some artists resist digital because it can be pirated easily, but with some I know it's a factor.
I'm interested in that comment, is that because there is a single film original to prove copyright? I would think digitisation is part of almost all commercial workflow these days so post-capture piracy still possible?
I maybe worded it badly, but I didn't mean that film is the only art. That would obviously be nonsense.
----------
Same goes for me. I meant that for artistic reasons film will never become obsolete. It is necessary.
----------
Mainly for uncreative commercial productions.
But in some cases, CGI is used to create great pieces.
----------
They are two of the best directors ever and they set the standard. The media industry is full of garbage, but I wouldn't take that as a measurement for what is considered desireable.
----------
Well put. I mostly agree.
A statement made in absolutes with words like "never" isn't misunderstood, but perhaps poorly worded. "Never" has a very specific meaning.
Are you arguing that those movies are reality, because I am pretty sure they are not. They are art. The comic books they come from are art. You may not like them. They may not run to your taste, but they are most definitely art. I do not care for rap music. That does not mean it isn't an art brought into the world by creative people. I flat out do not get Picasso, but love Monet. I would not say that Picasso is not an artist though. Just because I do not like something and it is a commercial success does not make it somehow "less" than other people's creations.
There are ton's of artists who worked on the movies I named. They see themselves as artists, and work hard. They put as much as they can into what you see, and certainly feel less than appreciated by comments like these.
You just SAW a building someone else built and pushed a button. You MIGHT have tweaked a few settings.
A CG artist sculpted the building, painted the textures or the brick and glass, designed all the graffiti, came up with the sky or at least matched the one on the plates, decided on the clouds, and even colored the sun. Then they selected a camera and focal length, chose what the shadows were the ambient light and everything else in that scene. Then the director says "can you make it 10% more mysterious?" Anyone ever do that to you in photography? I can do lighter and darker, redder and bluer, but "mysteriousness" and "innocence" are not things you can adjust with a slider.
And since there is no bird big enough to carry a grown man (that would defy the laws of physics), manned flight is impossible. Only it isn't. There are other ways around the problem.
You are looking at between now and Christmas. I am looking between now and 2115.
Read my first post in this thread. I address all your concerns there.
There's a single negative, and a limited number of signed, sequentially numbered prints done by the artist.
Yeah, someone could scan 'em, but the ONLY authorized prints have been done by the artist so a print of a scan is a more obvious fake. Of course someone cold forge anything, but it's really more that they wanna sell a unique physical thing, with the side benefit they don't have to worry about some nimrod downloading it and using it a condom ad or whatever.
First, good use of the word nimrod.
Second, I don't really see how this is any different to a digital archive. The original (digital) archive is usually a hi-res archive. It's quite unusual for fine art photographers etc to upload full hi-res archives to the internet, the actual archive file they are using for printing, or RAW files that could then be manipulated. These hi-res archives are the ones used to produce the ONLY authorised ltd edition, signed, numbered prints. The internet is also full of scanned negatives, by fine art photographers, that can be downloaded and used in condom adverts. But, like the fine art digital prints, the ones out on the internet are usually low res copies, or lower res copies than would be used for archival quality prints. I think holding "the" negative is a safe is no different than holding "the" hi-res digital file in a HDD with encryption/security features.
Below is a link to a gallery/dealer in London. I've linked the Sebastiao Salgado page. There are prints for sale made with both film and digital (check the dates). Prices are the same (mouse over images for prices)! Salgado has both the negatives and archive digital files safely under lock and key. He controls reproduction of both media types. He controls the volume reproduced, sizes, number in the series etc. The only difference is the machinations that need to be gone through to make the prints from the original media.
http://www.beetlesandhuxley.com/artists/salgado-sebastiao-born-1944.html?showall=1
Last edited: