Video: Is Technology Killing Photography?
Steve Perry is a really good wildlife photographer:
https://youtu.be/R5Crg4z3eK8?si=YQZa4g-srf2XwooP
I made a comment:
Now when you show someone a photo and they respond, "Wow, that's a great photo, you must have a really good camera" They'll probably be right.
Technology is killing modern cameras for me, but that is different than it killing photography. But the thing is that you can just choose to either not use those features or buy older gear and just side-step the issue entirely. It can't kill photography, but it can kill your enjoyment of it and everyone's line of how much outsourcing of the process to the camera they are willing to do is different.
I think everyone knows that though and the real issue is actually not about technology at all, but instead is linked to the social aspects of photography, the sharing of photos. I agree with Steve in that a lot of the outcry is about controlling the perception of others rather than anything to do with photography. Someone doesn't want the photos they're really proud of to be dismissed as being the result of spending the most money.
I think people are too fixated on recognition and money and the desire to turn their hobbies into a job, which is a whole other can of (related) worms. But I think that the solution is to shift focus from the output of photography towards the process of photography. Then suddenly advanced cameras and AI image generation are no longer issues that affect you unless you want them too.
Quote from Cory Maben on May 9, 2024, 7:07 pmTechnology is killing modern cameras for me, but that is different than it killing photography. But the thing is that you can just choose to either not use those features or buy older gear and just side-step the issue entirely. It can't kill photography, but it can kill your enjoyment of it and everyone's line of how much outsourcing of the process to the camera they are willing to do is different.
I think everyone knows that though and the real issue is actually not about technology at all, but instead is linked to the social aspects of photography, the sharing of photos. I agree with Steve in that a lot of the outcry is about controlling the perception of others rather than anything to do with photography. Someone don't want the photos they're really proud of to be dismissed as being the result of spending the most money.
I think people are too fixated on recognition and money and the desire to turn their hobbies into a job, which is a whole other can of (related) worms. But I think that the solution is to shift focus from the output of photography towards the process of photography. Then suddenly advanced cameras and AI image generation are no longer issues that affect you unless you want them too.
For something like sports and wildlife photography that eye detect is a complete game changer. Between that and the fact that they focus in darn near darkness. LOL....After all the practice I put into using that back button AF.
The sad fact is, I have way more important expenses than buying a new camera. It wouldn't be a new camera either it would mean new glass too. You're correct. This isn't a job, it's a hobby. I have job, I don't want another.
I'm all on board with the hi tech features of the modern mirrolesss and if I had the dough you bet I would blow some on a hot rod wildlife set-up.
For all the other photography, I don't necessarily even need autofocus.
Quote from KankRat on May 9, 2024, 4:20 pmSteve Perry is a really good wildlife photographer:
https://youtu.be/R5Crg4z3eK8?si=YQZa4g-srf2XwooP
I made a comment:
Now when you show someone a photo and they respond, "Wow, that's a great photo, you must have a really good camera" They'll probably be right.
Certainly gear helps, especially with wildlife and sports. But there's so much more to a compelling photograph than correct focus and exposure. If all one is after is to document events (look at the bird on a stick I saw. Here is Johnny kicking the ball again) then sure, nowadays gear and not skill may be the most important thing. But photography as art is a whole other story, and gear simply cannot make someone a skilled photographer. A skilled photographer might get low to the ground or shoot through the net, something neat like that to elevate the photo. They would know how to create motion blur for artistic effect, etc. Someone with fancy gear and no skills is just going to stand there and take a bunch of similar photos of Johnny kicking the ball. lol, Sorry for my silly example. Also, sorry to anyone named John. 😛
There are exceptions... and maybe I'm wrong about everything. Maybe we'll just have to select a scene mode and maybe our cameras will even make recommendations as we shoot ("Hey, JBP, this photo of your kid would look better if you got eye level with them". Great example is the recent Aurora. People took out their phones, pointed them at the sky, and their phones just knew what to do and even processed the images in a way that no mirrorless camera on auto mode would have. Voila, people had nice photos of the northern lights, handheld with their pocket cameras. "Nice photo, you must have a nice camera" Yes, it computes very well lol
Do I agree with you? Disagree with you? I dunno 😆
Quote from JBP on May 23, 2024, 3:30 pmQuote from KankRat on May 9, 2024, 4:20 pmSteve Perry is a really good wildlife photographer:
https://youtu.be/R5Crg4z3eK8?si=YQZa4g-srf2XwooP
I made a comment:
Now when you show someone a photo and they respond, "Wow, that's a great photo, you must have a really good camera" They'll probably be right.
Certainly gear helps, especially with wildlife and sports. But there's so much more to a compelling photograph than correct focus and exposure. If all one is after is to document events (look at the bird on a stick I saw. Here is Johnny kicking the ball again) then sure, nowadays gear and not skill may be the most important thing. But photography as art is a whole other story, and gear simply cannot make someone a skilled photographer. A skilled photographer might get low to the ground or shoot through the net, something neat like that to elevate the photo. They would know how to create motion blur for artistic effect, etc. Someone with fancy gear and no skills is just going to stand there and take a bunch of similar photos of Johnny kicking the ball. lol, Sorry for my silly example. Also, sorry to anyone named John.
There are exceptions... and maybe I'm wrong about everything. Maybe we'll just have to select a scene mode and maybe our cameras will even make recommendations as we shoot ("Hey, JBP, this photo of your kid would look better if you got eye level with them". Great example is the recent Aurora. People took out their phones, pointed them at the sky, and their phones just knew what to do and even processed the images in a way that no mirrorless camera on auto mode would have. Voila, people had nice photos of the northern lights, handheld with their pocket cameras. "Nice photo, you must have a nice camera" Yes, it computes very well lol
Do I agree with you? Disagree with you? I dunno
I actually think the example you gave of AI providing a compositional aide is coming, it's the next step. Over time we've outsourced the exposure, then the focusing to the camera and now it feels like with the advent of AI and subject tracking we're running out of room to advance focus technology it has to shift to something else. Outsourcing composition seems like a realistic next step.
It's a tired platitude at this point, but it's been a big part of my enjoyment of film is being more involved and reducing the amount of automation. But that being said none of technology ever improved my photographs as art. You talk about the distinction between mere documentation and capital P Photography. Looking at my grandparents film albums of vacations, the photos were mostly documentary and wouldn't look out of place if I saw them on my sister's (who doesn't do photography) instagram. They exist mostly as evidence or mementos of a vacation, 'here is were I went, and this is what I saw' and I agree with you, photography is so much more than that. It's not just a evidence, it's taking the things you see and trying to create something more than the sum of their parts, to extract or impart meaning into those things. As my grandparent's and sister's photos suggest technology didn't really change anything at all in terms of skill in an artistic sense. But rather made a lot of the mechanical, operational skill of a camera optional. I also think that your right in that this change directly effects sports and wildlife photographers the most. In the video Steve mentions that getting a sharp photo of a bird doing anything other than mid-flight against the sky was difficult and a signifier of skill. Same thing I imagine with timing a shot with sports to a critical moment of the game. Improved autofocus and burst rates makes those things far more common and achievable without the same level of experience and dedication. I think part of the pushback is from that segment that is adjusting to that new reality
