100 yrs from now: Everybody is a Photographer


Status
Not open for further replies.

Rev

New Member
Aug 15, 2004
905
0
0
#1
This topic probably has been discussed before, if it has, pls delete it, let me know to delete it or kindly direct me to any books that talk abt this...

To take photos is actually natural human behavior. The camera only externally preserves the memories from your brain. Hence the term 'photographic memory' So, 100 years from now, everybody will be a photographer in his/her own right, taking damn good photos. As minaturization continues, cameras inevitably will be micro-electronic-implants using the eyes as lens & possibly the brain as the temporary hard-drive - we only use 10% anyway. Photos would be virtually handshake-free! No need for minimum shutter-speed...IS/VR, bokeh... All U probably need is a telescope for telephoto, the right prescription glasses for myopia and the fps would be 32fps... probably 40fps for women =P

In fact, it's already happening now because cell phone makers & camera manufacturers are making alot easier to put photography in your hands with camera in a cell phone or a DSLR. Of course, the digital format is the biggest catalyst. Look around at any event, any incident, any situation, the cell-phone camera is always there.

So imagine this... excellent photographers excel at using their tools effectively. But since you are born with the eye & the brain, the effectiveness becomes irrelevant. Or rather, since it's so easy to use the cell-phone camera now & more camera manufactures are offering free photography classroom lessons, everyone is now able to take photographs...

100 years from now, there would be so many photographs, so many good photographs to share...and that means it's more competitive & much harder to have a forte/expertise in photography. So photography becomes useless?

Probably wouldnt even take up photography & learned as fast if it werent for digital. Wonder what U CSers think? This is good? Or bad? or good & bad? Hope to hear yr thoughts =D
 

Astin

Senior Member
Mar 2, 2002
4,736
0
36
Astin Studio
astin.clubsnap.org
#3
But, 100 years from now, everything must have been photographed already, nothing will be new, so they will just repeat what we shoot today anyway?
 

Robin

Senior Member
Mar 5, 2004
645
0
16
Tanah Merah
#4
well....if chips are implanted into the eyes and brain....probably not much need for photographers as everyone will be able to capture the situation exactly the way the see it...... :)
 

slaam

New Member
Aug 29, 2004
1,548
0
0
West
naturespies.blogspot.com
#5
Rev said:
In fact, it's already happening now because cell phone makers & camera manufacturers are making alot easier to put photography in your hands with camera in a cell phone or a DSLR. Of course, the digital format is the biggest catalyst. Look around at any event, any incident, any situation, the cell-phone camera is always there.

So imagine this... excellent photographers excel at using their tools effectively. But since you are born with the eye & the brain, the effectiveness becomes irrelevant. Or rather, since it's so easy to use the cell-phone camera now & more camera manufactures are offering free photography classroom lessons, everyone is now able to take photographs...

100 years from now, there would be so many photographs, so many good photographs to share...and that means it's more competitive & much harder to have a forte/expertise in photography. So photography becomes useless?
ppl might move to moving images to express themselves. but before that there will be an 'evolution' in the way images are perceived if it isn't happening already. the realisation that ad images are PSed and airbrushed will nag at the consumer and reducing the effectiveness of still images for commercials. but before that we will be continually assaulted by images. perhaps there will be desensitization to the world around us. Like too many starving children shots makes u jus think its the norm and u will let it be.
commercial photography now and before are still the same. it was always about trends and new representations. previously the cloning tool was the highly sought after skill in PS. now its bread and butter. liquify is the next.. in a few more years something will come up again...
 

jsbn

Senior Member
Jul 24, 2002
2,944
0
0
Planet Eropagnis
#6
Rev said:
This topic probably has been discussed before, if it has, pls delete it, let me know to delete it or kindly direct me to any books that talk abt this...

To take photos is actually natural human behavior. The camera only externally preserves the memories from your brain. Hence the term 'photographic memory' So, 100 years from now, everybody will be a photographer in his/her own right, taking damn good photos. As minaturization continues, cameras inevitably will be micro-electronic-implants using the eyes as lens & possibly the brain as the temporary hard-drive - we only use 10% anyway. Photos would be virtually handshake-free! No need for minimum shutter-speed...IS/VR, bokeh... All U probably need is a telescope for telephoto, the right prescription glasses for myopia and the fps would be 32fps... probably 40fps for women =P

In fact, it's already happening now because cell phone makers & camera manufacturers are making alot easier to put photography in your hands with camera in a cell phone or a DSLR. Of course, the digital format is the biggest catalyst. Look around at any event, any incident, any situation, the cell-phone camera is always there.

So imagine this... excellent photographers excel at using their tools effectively. But since you are born with the eye & the brain, the effectiveness becomes irrelevant. Or rather, since it's so easy to use the cell-phone camera now & more camera manufactures are offering free photography classroom lessons, everyone is now able to take photographs...

100 years from now, there would be so many photographs, so many good photographs to share...and that means it's more competitive & much harder to have a forte/expertise in photography. So photography becomes useless?

Probably wouldnt even take up photography & learned as fast if it werent for digital. Wonder what U CSers think? This is good? Or bad? or good & bad? Hope to hear yr thoughts =D
With the digital revolution and price crashing on digital based as well as film based bodies, there are so many ppl taking up photography and getting like Nikon's D2-series, Canon's 1-series, EOS 5D as well as snapping up lower end DSLRs like the 350D, D50. Technically speaking, everyone's a photographer.

However, how many would have the passion to strive to improve their photos to take even better photos in pursuit of The ART itself?

Between snapshooters and good photographers, the difference is a thin line.
 

student

Senior Member
Jul 26, 2004
3,078
0
0
#7
Rev said:
The camera only externally preserves the memories from your brain.
This is the crux of the issue, isn't it?

Your brain. Not the recording equipment.

Don't we all say that it is not the equipment, but the photographer?

Put two persons next to each other in front of anything, and they will see differently.

Put two photographers in front of a static posed model, and the final images will be different.

At the end, images are reflection of who the person is. And the strength of the images only as strong as the person.

SO there will always be a place for the person who sees differently. The masses are, well, just masses.
 

Sep 8, 2004
1,255
0
0
near the Equator
#8
Having the equipment is one thing, but human expressions through the lens will always differ due to how we are as individuals.

And this expression of vision is the dividing line between each cameraman or photographer.One's an operator, the other's an artist.
 

Astin

Senior Member
Mar 2, 2002
4,736
0
36
Astin Studio
astin.clubsnap.org
#9
student said:
This is the crux of the issue, isn't it?

Your brain. Not the recording equipment.

Don't we all say that it is not the equipment, but the photographer?

Put two persons next to each other in front of anything, and they will see differently.

Put two photographers in front of a static posed model, and the final images will be different.

At the end, images are reflection of who the person is. And the strength of the images only as strong as the person.

SO there will always be a place for the person who sees differently. The masses are, well, just masses.
How about put the same photograph in front of 2 persons (maybe a doctor and a businessman :bsmilie: ), and each will see it differently.
 

#11
Astin said:
But, 100 years from now, everything must have been photographed already, nothing will be new, so they will just repeat what we shoot today anyway?
Now if you repeat the shoot of your 20-year-old model after 100 years she'll be like 120 years old? (Presuming you both could live that long.) :)
 

Deadpoet

Senior Member
Oct 18, 2004
4,619
0
0
#12
I have no intention to find out what photography will have become in a hundred years. not that curious.
 

StreetShooter

Senior Member
Jan 17, 2002
4,634
0
0
Katong
streetshooter.clubsnap.org
#13
It will just be a recording tool, like any other recording tool.

100 years ago not everyone had access to ink and paper to draw and write down their thoughts.

Today you can get a free pencil and paper at Ikea and draw your heart out anytime you feel like it. But your drawing may not look anything like one done by, say, Leonardo Da Vinci. That does not mean you will not like your own drawing better than the one of Mona Lisa.

Same thing with photography. In 100 years' time, (almost) everyone may be able to capture pictures of what they see to record their personal memories. There will also be photographers who can make nicer pictures than others. But the pictures that will be important to you will probably be the personal ones, not the ones for display to others.
 

trlnlty

New Member
Mar 22, 2005
476
0
0
#14
there is a difference between a snapshot and a photo taken by a photographer.

show me a camera phone that can take a photo like this, or even any "photographer" on the street



and im sure there are thousands of photographers who are more talented than me. Photography takes a lifetime to learn and no matter how much money you have, without the love for it, you wont be able to take nice photos
 

Astin

Senior Member
Mar 2, 2002
4,736
0
36
Astin Studio
astin.clubsnap.org
#15
Sion said:
Now if you repeat the shoot of your 20-year-old model after 100 years she'll be like 120 years old? (Presuming you both could live that long.) :)
Dont worry, 100 years later, there will be newer models, and someone will organize model shoots, even after we are all gone by then.
 

#17
Rev said:
This topic probably has been discussed before, if it has, pls delete it, let me know to delete it or kindly direct me to any books that talk abt this...

To take photos is actually natural human behavior. The camera only externally preserves the memories from your brain. Hence the term 'photographic memory' So, 100 years from now, everybody will be a photographer in his/her own right, taking damn good photos. As minaturization continues, cameras inevitably will be micro-electronic-implants using the eyes as lens & possibly the brain as the temporary hard-drive - we only use 10% anyway. Photos would be virtually handshake-free! No need for minimum shutter-speed...IS/VR, bokeh... All U probably need is a telescope for telephoto, the right prescription glasses for myopia and the fps would be 32fps... probably 40fps for women =P

In fact, it's already happening now because cell phone makers & camera manufacturers are making alot easier to put photography in your hands with camera in a cell phone or a DSLR. Of course, the digital format is the biggest catalyst. Look around at any event, any incident, any situation, the cell-phone camera is always there.

So imagine this... excellent photographers excel at using their tools effectively. But since you are born with the eye & the brain, the effectiveness becomes irrelevant. Or rather, since it's so easy to use the cell-phone camera now & more camera manufactures are offering free photography classroom lessons, everyone is now able to take photographs...

100 years from now, there would be so many photographs, so many good photographs to share...and that means it's more competitive & much harder to have a forte/expertise in photography. So photography becomes useless?

Probably wouldnt even take up photography & learned as fast if it werent for digital. Wonder what U CSers think? This is good? Or bad? or good & bad? Hope to hear yr thoughts =D
You have a very good point, however, every person that owns a camera now may not want to be a photographer and yes, they may be able to take good pics, but ultimatly if they dont want to do it as a career then its not going to matter. They will get someone else too take photos if they need it done i.e. a photographer. IMO there will always be a need for a photographer just like there will be a need for lawyers, musicians etc etc etc
 

Rev

New Member
Aug 15, 2004
905
0
0
#18
thanks everyone for their views... most interesting... I especitally like the points brought up by student, streetshooter & wildstallion

The issue here is also images(good photographs) vs photographs (ordinary, bad photographs)

In our current situation,
Photographs can be taken by Anybody. Images are produced by Skill.

I feel strongly this gap between 'Anybody' & 'Skill' is lessening. Look at the number of ROM & freelance photographs today. Even I admit, I'm able to do freelance only becuase of the high accessibility to photography from a digital camera. As mentioned in first post, I believe photography is a natural human behavior. Once the skill required to overcome the tools limitations/strengths becomes non-existent, then 'Anybody' becomes a photographer.

And then these Photographs/Snapshots that become Images subjective to interpretation of the masses.

1 simple way to look at this also is what streetshot & deswitch mentioned... 'ink/paint & paper' moving to 'negatives & photo-paper' moving to '3D images' & maybe moving to 'sensations' as well, so it's inevitable natural evolution =)

Imagine 3D images that simulate touch, feel, taste, smell... maybe that's why Deapoet doesnt want to see this...

Thanks again all, very insightful.
 

melnjes

New Member
Aug 12, 2003
1,198
1
0
#19
Astin said:
But, 100 years from now, everything must have been photographed already, nothing will be new, so they will just repeat what we shoot today anyway?
I think someone notable actually said that in the super-duper early early early days of photography, something like in a matter of decades, everything that can be photographed will have been done so. That was in the 19th century. Can anyone verify if I imagined this or if this is true? I just tried to look this up but couldn't find it.
 

ndroo

Moderator
Staff member
Nov 22, 2003
8,243
3
0
47
www.fuzzyeyeballs.com
www.fuzzyeyeballs.com
#20
Rev said:
Probably wouldnt even take up photography & learned as fast if it werent for digital. Wonder what U CSers think? This is good? Or bad? or good & bad? Hope to hear yr thoughts =D
Don't flame me for saying this but I'm gonna say it ... "i simply don't care" :bsmilie:
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom