Is Technology Killing Photography?

[Steve]

Is Technology Killing Photography?

Warning - you might not like what I have to say.

In this short video, I'll share my perspective on it and why I believe many view technology as a challenge. I'll discuss our past, our future, and what I believe is truly unfolding. I'll also touch on the kind of person I believe will dominate the future of wildlife photography, and it might not be what you expect. I'm eager to hear your thoughts - I think

 

[arbitrage]

Spot on Steve, spot on.
I agree with all of those points you bring up in the video.

For myself my main enjoyment of the hobby is being outside in nature and the "hunt" of the subject/situation that will net me a nice shot.
I've been fortunate enough to stay on top of the latest and greatest cameras as they've arrived over the past 15 years I've been doing this.
I love the new tech and features because it opens up new and interesting possibilities for getting photos I either couldn't get before or maybe could get 1 in 1000 tries but now can get 1 in 10 and as you say can now concentrate more on the overall image composition.

Thinking back to when we got full sensor AF coverage with modes like Sony's Real Time Tracking or Nikon 3D where we could let the camera keep the subject in focus and then concentrate on the overall scene to have that subject anywhere but the middle of the frame....your lion with rainbow is such a good example of that.

Just having spent time with the A9III the past 2 weeks has been so much fun to combine the high FPS options with the precapture feature and go out and attempt shots that were very hard to do with human reaction time in the past.

 

[Jmaes]

No issues with what you had to say here

I would even argue that (wildlife) photography might potentially be even more challenging with all these advances in technology; in the sense that the bar has been raised (as you mentioned) and you need to pull off something truly artistic/unique in order to stand out.

 

[Doug Herr]

Exactly right, Steve.

 

[Activert]

Excellent arguments! I completely agree with you!

 

[DavidT]

Great video and spot on.

I will add one to what you said that will likely irritate some but it’s not my intention.

Money. I think a lot of people can’t afford to keep up with the improving tech and since they can’t have it they bash the technology. They won’t have the advantage the other guy has so they crap on it.

People often say well I’m not a pro so I’m not spending that much on a camera or lens. To me that is either they don’t value the ability to get the shot, don’t take their photography that seriously and or can’t afford it.

It’s not a bad thing but I find it’s often why people will have a negative opinion about some gear.

I have to chuckle when looking back when the a1 first came out and all the hate towards Sony and those who bought the camera and possibly switched brands from those who shot a different brand that couldn’t do what that camera can do. Fast forward a few years and now that other brands have a competitive camera which they have all bought it’s crickets. No more you don’t need this or that because now they have it.

I guess it’s human nature but just because you can’t or don’t see the value in something isn’t a reason to dismiss something new.

I’ve experienced that with the a9III. Either it’s “just shoot video that’s not photography”, “or that’s to low of MP, or my favorite I shoot single frame because I capture the moment and don’t need more than one frame.” That one got me rolling. If you are that good please work for National Geographic.

I am one who can’t afford to have it all. Sure a 600 with TC would be super cool but I can’t afford to shoot two brands at that level and don’t have a desire to switch brands again as the juice isn’t worth the squeeze. We all have to balance want vs need vs finances.

 

[Mal Paso]

It's always been about technology and better equipment. I couldn't wait to dump my Argus C3 for a Pentax SLR. I think you still need all the technical skills though to produce a body of work. I have seen "spray and pray" win a photo contest, I think that was always in the cards. I think @Steve is right, our standards of what is a good photo have gone up.

 

[Camatose]

I didn't watch. Don't need to. Technology is killing everything.

I have to chuckle when looking back when the a1 first came out and all the hate towards Sony and those who bought the camera and possibly switched brands from those who shot a different brand that couldn’t do what that camera can do. Fast forward a few years and now that other brands have a competitive camera which they have all bought it’s crickets. No more you don’t need this or that because now they have it.

I guess it’s human nature but just because you can’t or don’t see the value in something isn’t a reason to dismiss something new.

I think you misinterpret. The reasons you hear is 'crickets' are multiple:

1) Sony set a new standard for pricing stupidity in mirrorless with the A1, it naturally brought protest.
2) None of the other brands have yet to exceed, nor even match that price.
3) Everything has gone up, except cameras. The A1 is the same price it was on release 3 years ago. While overall prices are slowly increasing, specific models are holding firm.

In summary, no other company has yet released a project to cause mass dissention. It will come, just wait until the A1M2 is released @ $7,495 US. (Remember you heard it here first!)

 

[Abinoone]

Is Technology Killing Photography?

Warning - you might not like what I have to say.

In this short video, I'll share my perspective on it and why I believe many view technology as a challenge. I'll discuss our past, our future, and what I believe is truly unfolding. I'll also touch on the kind of person I believe will dominate the future of wildlife photography, and it might not be what you expect. I'm eager to hear your thoughts - I think

Agree 100%! In my opinion, new technologies open new opportunities for creative minds.

 

[gdecamp]

Perfect Steve and I agree! New tech allows us to continually push the envelope and move on to better techniques and images because of it. It's great to be a photographer these days but I've said that before years ago but tech continues to progress which is always good!

 

[MatthewK]

I love the tech for the exact reason Steve espouses: it automates things so more and more the camera gets out of the way of me capturing the moments. The capabilities of my Fuji X-T5 allow me to get snaps of my kids that would have been extremely difficult just a few years ago; it's not that it wasn't possible, it's just that by the time I got into position, moved my AF point to the face, adjusted exposure (Canon didn't have metering linked to single point on any cameras except for the 1-series ), and took the shot... moment over. Now, the AF and subject detect is so fast, WYSIWYG instantly shows me what the photo will look like, so now I can snag those little moments at... well, a moments notice. It's so valuable for me to get these shots, I don't care how it's done or how dumbed down it makes the craft to the purists, I just want those split-second precious captures that will never come again.

For birds... all the tech in the world won't get a subject in your viewfinder. I always say that I'm not gear limited, I'm subject limited. All I want for my camera to do is to not blow it when that rare hero shot appears before me. The less faffing around with settings, the better my chances when that shot comes, and again, the tech is enabling the camera to get out of the way more and more with each evolution. Bring it on.

I will say though... all this new tech is amazing, but could you all (the camera companies) just chill on that for a bit and fix the Background Detect AF? Pretty please?

 

[DaveyDitzer]

While listening to Steve's presentation a number of thoughts struck me. I first upgraded to DSLR because I was struggling (age) with getting good focus and got tired of my kids pointing that out. I also continue to enjoy old photographs from prior eras from Matthew Brady's civil war images to collections such as "The Family of Man". In short, I agree with Steve. Images that capture my attention do so by virtue of their composition.

 

[John Navitsky]

few extra thoughts:

1) those who focus on technically challenging material often continue to focus on technically challenging shots, but simply dial up the ambition

2) some subject matter continues to be challenging despite technology

 

[GregT943]

I agree with this as far as actual camera/lens technology goes. The one exception is AI. Currently AI images still aren't very good, but in the not too distant future AI will be indistinguishable from a photographic image. When this happens I think it will ruin other peoples photography for me. It won't ruin my photography for me, I will still love going out and capturing my own images, but it will ruin other people's photography for me because I will no longer be able to trust the image is real. I don't ever see myself losing interest in photography, but I am worried that one day AI will make me lose interest in other people's photography.

 

[Carmel Nikon]

Steve, I love the video and your points make good sense. My father got me into photography back in 1981, and if he were alive today, he'd be shocked at what we can now routinely do - in areas he struggled to master in creating beautiful images.

I believe the latest tech (in my case, for Nikon Z) has allowed me to capture much better images in challenging situations (BIF, etc.). My wife thinks I've become a WAY better photographer in the past year. I certainly may have improved my skills, especially in visualizing the image and effect that I am trying to capture. However, much of my perceived improvement is the capabilities of my gear. It's a synergistic thing - better tech allows for greater stretch in the images I try to capture, and that pushes my artistic vision to advance, which pushes me to more fully use the tech, which...(virtuous cycle continues).

Thank you for taking a time out to create your video commentary.

 

[Ralph]

Is Technology Killing Photography?

Warning - you might not like what I have to say.

In this short video, I'll share my perspective on it and why I believe many view technology as a challenge. I'll discuss our past, our future, and what I believe is truly unfolding. I'll also touch on the kind of person I believe will dominate the future of wildlife photography, and it might not be what you expect. I'm eager to hear your thoughts - I think

Well done Steve. I totally agree.

 

[bleirer]

Very well said, and I'd say I agree strongly with every point. From the first cave paintings the things that art has include imagination, an idea, a vision, an intention. Even then charred bones were the new technology, as materials and tools improved so did artists find ways to make use of new tech.

 

[TurtleCat]

Totally agree. I think the big takeaway for many is that the art side of photography is becoming more important and relevant to the viewer. The “issue” is that many who enjoy taking photos have a mixture of artistic talent from nonexistent to “okay”. I am in the “okay” to sometimes better than OK level of artistic ability. The tech enables me to at least try new things but my brain and talent limit me from making “jaw dropping photos” in this current world. Judging from my social media responses I’d say many agree with me

If you aren’t in it for money (and most shouldn’t) then it should be about what you enjoy and don’t worry if someone else can get a similar shot more easily next week than you did today.

 

[jimclarkphoto]

Is Technology Killing Photography?

Warning - you might not like what I have to say.

In this short video, I'll share my perspective on it and why I believe many view technology as a challenge. I'll discuss our past, our future, and what I believe is truly unfolding. I'll also touch on the kind of person I believe will dominate the future of wildlife photography, and it might not be what you expect. I'm eager to hear your thoughts - I think

Spot on Steve! And if the photographer doesn't like it, then simiply go back to your old ways...Whatever turns your crank!

 

[Anjin San]

People often say well I’m not a pro so I’m not spending that much on a camera or lens. To me that is either they don’t value the ability to get the shot, don’t take their photography that seriously and or can’t afford it.

I think that’s an oversimplification…for me at least I could easily afford the exotic lenses of I wanted one...and I could afford the Sherpa to help lug them around…but that’s not the point. However…for me it comes down to the other factors in a buying decision…weight, physical abilities, and all the others…and it ends up being a bang for the buck decision more than anything else. I’m not going to claim that a 600TC doesn’t have ‘better‘ IQ than a 180-600 when viewing at 2:1 in LR…there’s a reason one of those costs us as much. As I’ve said before…better is the enemy of good enough…and for screen output we’re talking 1024 or 1280 pixels wide instead of the 8256 wide the perfectly framed in cropped image of say a Z9. Simple physics tells you that some of the kbetter simply gets downsampled away and the final image when viewed even on a high quality monitor like an App”e Studio display is pretty much equivalent, particularly if one applies noise reduction and the background is fr enough back for nice bokeh (which is admittedly easier t f4). Given that…for most amateurs I’m not sure that the 7x more expensive lens makes sense…even if it’s easily affordable. Steve has a different need…his business and income depends on the best possible images…and he can presumably depreciate the cost of the lens as a business expense…so for him…and the pros trying to get into Nat Geo they make a lot more economic sense.

As an example…on our recent Serengeti trip…we got an almost identical backlit with rim light of a male lion at sunrise because we were sitting 5bfert apart in the truck…him with (I think) his 600TC and me with a 600PF/TC although TCs may not have been involved. His was probably at f4 or 5.6 and mine was f.3 or 9…but framing was a tight portrait and while his was shot at lower ISO my final image looks pretty similar to one in the video which I’m pretty sure is almost the same shot I got. I’m sure his is better at 2:1…but side by side on screen with the same PP applied I’m pretty sure that most people could not pick out the 14K lens shot. So for me…that 7x more expensive isn’t providing sufficient bang for the buck and my needs but as I said our needs are wildly different. And my body/lens was a lot easier to swing around because of size and weight…but gain, different needs.

I agree with the video though…I have some great BIF shots from the trip that I love…but I just don’t get out enough to have developed the skills to get them at a decent keeper rate…but SD AF and 20FPS helped me get them…and content aware fill let me change the framing slightly on one really nice pose that was just too close to the frame edge otherwise. My contribution was to stay focused on the perched bird and having seen his video knew that the slight squat meant it was time to shoot and pan. And yes…some shots of them were against sky…but some were against nicely contrasting rocks on the kopje…and some have the nice buttery green or yellowish background we all know and love. Couldn’t have gotten them without the assist from the tech.

 

[Ad Astra]

Interesting discuss @Steve I remember reading Heather Angel's books when I was young thinking these are amazing photos and they took a lot of skill on behalf of the photographer and as such were beyond my capabilities. Now anybody can take such photos with today's gear.

Where I think I diverge on the theme of the video is AI. AI photos and videos are really in their infancy still, in a few years time I can see that they will reach the state where it is almost impossible to determine if they are real or generated. No photographer is required for many genres and the artistic part is driving the input into the AI generation so the artistic skill is still going to be required. AI is going to shake up the photography industry for professional compositors etc. I do photography as hobby so will still enjoy going out taking photos and enjoying the experience, but AI is definitely going to change the professional photography business.

 

[jeremyjohnsonphotos]

Hahaha. LOVE LOVE LOVE this, @Steve . Good god, I've been having this rant for years in side chats but never so well and powerfully put. Thank you! Now I can just point people to this when these nonsense arguments come up about gear.

I'm desperate to find a community of visual storytellers, but all the forums and public spaces are almost completely gear focused or snapshot-of-the-day-as-evidence-of-expensive-trip/camera/lens.

The honest to god truth is that visual storytelling is hard, and it's rather subjective, and it takes some courage and time to stick with it. Talking about gear is easy. Finding your voice isn't.

Probably some people enjoy "photography" more for the technical aspects, geeking out about gear, learning all the stats, experimenting with light, etc. But these are NOT the people who should be making wild proclamations about the future of photography as art and craft. In my experience, online communities are chock-full of this type, which has become the de facto culture of this craft just by sheer volume.

Might have to watch this one a second time. It just filled my heart with joy.

 

[arbitrage]

I didn't watch. Don't need to. Technology is killing everything.

I think you misinterpret. The reasons you hear is 'crickets' are multiple:

1) Sony set a new standard for pricing stupidity in mirrorless with the A1, it naturally brought protest.
2) None of the other brands have yet to exceed, nor even match that price.
3) Everything has gone up, except cameras. The A1 is the same price it was on release 3 years ago. While overall prices are slowly increasing, specific models are holding firm.

In summary, no other company has yet released a project to cause mass dissention. It will come, just wait until the A1M2 is released @ $7,495 US. (Remember you heard it here first!)

What are you talking about? The A1 was the exact same price as the Canon and Nikon DSLR flagship bodies that were still their flagships at the time the A1 came out. The A1 out performed those cameras in every measurable way.
We can't compare the A1 price to the garbage MILCs that were available from Canon and Nikon at the time.

 

[Calson]

I read a book published in the 1890's in which the author complained that photography had become too easy and too many causal users had entered the field. What had changed was the availability of pre-made chemical solutions and pre-treated emulsions. There was a similar concern with roll film where people could simply load a canister into a camera and shoot away and no need to load sheet film in a darkroom. Photographers could shoot 35 times as many images as before and this was a dramatic change.

I started with 4x5 sheet film that I loaded in a darkroom and then went outside to take pictures. I moved on to black and white 35mm film emulsions and a B&W print process that was again in a darkroom. To make color prints I needed to load exposed paper inside a drum in a darkroom and then I could add the chemicals and an hour later I had a Cibachrome print. With color I lost the ability to dodge or burn in sections of an image as with black and white prints and so a big step back in that regard.

With digital I could again do with color prints what I could do before with black and white prints and I no longer needed a darkroom. This was a huge leap forward. I was also not limited to 35-36 shots per roll of film which was a huge advantage for underwater photography. Even photographing weddings it was advantageous to not have to stop and load a new roll of film and to be able to adjust the white balance for the artificial light sources. Many wedding photographers stayed with black and white even with digital cameras and so could avoid dealing with white balance problems entirely. They pretended that it was more artistic or photojournalism as a cover story as to why they did not provide color images for their clients.

A friend in the 1970's spent a few months in Germany and shot with a 110 camera with a fixed lens and the images she brought back were superior to anything I had seen in any print publication. She had a great eye and a natural gift in composition and capturing key moments. On the other hand I have seen images shot with a Nikon pro camera that were worthless. I read an article where there was a studio set up with a pro model and two photographers were then asked to shoot in that studio, one a pro portrait photographer and the other an experienced photographer with no training in portrait work. It was easy to tell which images were done by each of the two photographers as the differences were stark and it demonstrated how much skill is needed on the part of the photographer.

 

[Cameron T]

I agree with this as far as actual camera/lens technology goes. The one exception is AI. Currently AI images still aren't very good, but in the not too distant future AI will be indistinguishable from a photographic image. When this happens I think it will ruin other peoples photography for me. It won't ruin my photography for me, I will still love going out and capturing my own images, but it will ruin other people's photography for me because I will no longer be able to trust the image is real. I don't ever see myself losing interest in photography, but I am worried that one day AI will make me lose interest in other people's photography.

This is how I feel. I'm not going to be able to trust other people's images because they can just fake them (eventually), or ai auto fill will "fix" bad images by overwriting them wholesale instead of cleaning up noise only, etc.