For me it's more a question of what else is competing for my play money. I think many people could swing a $14k lens and a $6k camera if it were a priority, but there are other things that compete for my attention, so I'm more of a $4k camera and $3k lens kind of buyer. Others might be a $1k camera and $1k lens. We could all share the same artistic vision, but at some point the execution differences will show.
Is Technology Killing Photography?
- Thread starter Steve
- Start date
If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).
fcotterill
Well-known member
I agree with you Steve 100%.
It's indeed remarkable to remember paging through coffee table books of African wildlife published in the 1970s/80s...an excellent exemplar is Among Predators and Prey by Hugo van Lawick on the Serengeti, being in awe of his captures of hunting carnivores captured in full flight with MF Nikkors on Kodachrome!
Beautiful images BTW, I especially like the poise of the young caracal. It is always a privilege to see these secretive cats
It's indeed remarkable to remember paging through coffee table books of African wildlife published in the 1970s/80s...an excellent exemplar is Among Predators and Prey by Hugo van Lawick on the Serengeti, being in awe of his captures of hunting carnivores captured in full flight with MF Nikkors on Kodachrome!
Beautiful images BTW, I especially like the poise of the young caracal. It is always a privilege to see these secretive cats
fcotterill
Well-known member
Today, technical Features exemplified by eye detection, PreCapture and RSF are welcome props for artists to capture the Proverbial Moment.
Equally, PhaseFresnel and other advances in optics have drastically squeezed down the size and weight of long lenses. With IBIS and VR, we took handholding for granted today.
The high ISOs also undergird a revolution in our ability to enjoy fast shutter speeds even in low light
Equally, PhaseFresnel and other advances in optics have drastically squeezed down the size and weight of long lenses. With IBIS and VR, we took handholding for granted today.
The high ISOs also undergird a revolution in our ability to enjoy fast shutter speeds even in low light
Great video Steve and great response to the never ending predictions of photography's demise based on the latest technology.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
No doubt the folks that will leverage evolving technologies to their fullest will find creative ways to use the new capabilities but I also think the technology and ability to capture fleeting moments rewards the basics: finding great subjects doing interesting things in great settings and great light.
Even with the best gear we've got to know where to find wildlife subjects, how to get them in front of our lenses, recognize good, bad and great light and know how to work with it, and hopefully do all of that in a good setting including background, environment, etc. No doubt the latest technology makes it easier to capture in-focus images at high frame rates but there's still a ton of field craft involved in getting ourselves to the right places at the right times and making the most of those photo opportunities out in the field.
IOW, in my mind the better the tools get the more we should focus on basics like animal behaviors, habitat, light, composition, and everything that we might call field craft to use that technology for more than crisp sharp throwaway images.
I find myself in pretty much complete agreement with Steve on this.
The key with new technology is its ability to release the creative vision and freedom of the artist.
The problem these days is technology is often designed by tech geeks. I have seen the world they work in. Very often these individuals have lost touch with the rest of humanity.
They work on the cutting edge with beta and pre-beta versions of everything. They are used to operating in chaos and it does not bother them because the very process of dealing with chaos is how they debug and refine their product.
What happens often is the end result is so complicated the rest of us have to spend a lot of time figuring out what it does, which choice is better for me and how do I work it effectively. Then just as we master it they change it all to something completely different.
For example the Z8 and Z9 cameras have exceedingly complex menu systems. As new users we have to spend months studying the guides to figure out how to make it do what we want it to do. It has been said in this forum that even for experienced professional photographers it takes six months to get familiar enough with the camera that its use becomes instinctive and the creative vision is released from having to spend so much time checking and adjusting everything technical.
Maybe some of my comments are age related. My first computer was a Radio Shack that had a cassette tape drive instead of a hard drive. My first PC's were XT's with a whopping 20mb hard drive and they operated in MS-DOS. I think the younger generations have been working tech chaos and have become skilled in navigating their way through the chaos.
Tech is great I can't live without it but it needs to get clearer and easier to apply for the rest of us.
Meanwhile I have people like poor Steve who has to figure this stuff out first and get the new guide out before they do another major firmware upgrade and he has to start all over again.
The key with new technology is its ability to release the creative vision and freedom of the artist.
The problem these days is technology is often designed by tech geeks. I have seen the world they work in. Very often these individuals have lost touch with the rest of humanity.
They work on the cutting edge with beta and pre-beta versions of everything. They are used to operating in chaos and it does not bother them because the very process of dealing with chaos is how they debug and refine their product.
What happens often is the end result is so complicated the rest of us have to spend a lot of time figuring out what it does, which choice is better for me and how do I work it effectively. Then just as we master it they change it all to something completely different.
For example the Z8 and Z9 cameras have exceedingly complex menu systems. As new users we have to spend months studying the guides to figure out how to make it do what we want it to do. It has been said in this forum that even for experienced professional photographers it takes six months to get familiar enough with the camera that its use becomes instinctive and the creative vision is released from having to spend so much time checking and adjusting everything technical.
Maybe some of my comments are age related. My first computer was a Radio Shack that had a cassette tape drive instead of a hard drive. My first PC's were XT's with a whopping 20mb hard drive and they operated in MS-DOS. I think the younger generations have been working tech chaos and have become skilled in navigating their way through the chaos.
Tech is great I can't live without it but it needs to get clearer and easier to apply for the rest of us.
Meanwhile I have people like poor Steve who has to figure this stuff out first and get the new guide out before they do another major firmware upgrade and he has to start all over again.
Not A Speck Of Cereal
Well-known member
Steve, I like all of your videos. We can get something from pretty much every one.
But this one I absolutely LOVE. You put into words the same feelings I have when I see people griping about technology. Feelings not a sufficient word, but I can't say frustration because, as you mentioned, people have been groaning like this since time immemorial, from horseless buggies to phone answering machines and now to AI.
Thanks for this. I hope you don't get too much flak.
I'm off to "spray and pray",
Chris
But this one I absolutely LOVE. You put into words the same feelings I have when I see people griping about technology. Feelings not a sufficient word, but I can't say frustration because, as you mentioned, people have been groaning like this since time immemorial, from horseless buggies to phone answering machines and now to AI.
Thanks for this. I hope you don't get too much flak.
I'm off to "spray and pray",
Chris
My comments were not about the price of a camera specifically and the a1 sold like crazy when it came out and still sells well. The a1 is $1300 off currently so yes it has been discounted.
Cricket comment was now that other brands have similar capable cameras to the a1 they no longer discount the need for higher frame rates, faster read out sensors, better at tracking etc.
Not A Speck Of Cereal
Well-known member
I believe the reason AI is getting all of these complaints are due to such binary viewpoints. Yes, 100% AI generative imagery will not be proper photography, but like many technological advances of the past, that's not the only way it will be used.
In short, just like with many Photoshop abilities in the past, AI assisted functions can help is in post processing to complete our artistic intent. Steve had a video about extending the background/canvas behind a BIF shot (using parts of the existing image) to make it more compositionally pleasing. What's the difference between that and me extending a fence with AI to finish out the image on one of the sides of the frame (with an unmodified main subject)?
Yes, we need to work out ways of being able to tell what's real photo work with AI assist vs. what's wholly AI. And we need bona-fide ways to protect our IP from being scanned for AI knowledge bases. But let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Chris
Cameron T
Well-known member
Imo, when you start adding things in to the scene that weren't there, it becomes more digital art than photography
Cameron T
Well-known member
You can't have both. Things get more complicated because we have more options. One can always choose to leave something in an auto mode, but then shouldn't complain when it does something it wants to do and not what they wanted it to do.
ajrmd
Well-known member
Current AI creates by cutting and pasting the work of others. The "learning" is brute force compilation of millions of images being scanned and broken down by rules followed by generation based on other algorithms. I am extremely happy with the technological advances which have facilitated my exploration of photographic genres in ways which were unimaginable except for the very well funded few. Perhaps all of this is an illusion though none of this is very threatening to me as long as I can travel, see with my own eyes, and push the button.
Agreed. And this quote from Ernst Haas comes to mind after reading your post - "The camera doesn't make a bit of difference. All of them can record what you are seeing. But, you have to SEE." Sometimes a change in technology helps me to see things differently, but mostly I need to keep teaching my self to see better, with or without a camera.
Mostly what I want is a camera to do what I want and to get out of my way as best as possible. Sometimes that involves the use of a lot of a camera's technology, and at other times it involves the most minimal of technology that a camera offers. It is good to have choices, and good to have tools that can be adapted to our (often everchanging) work styles.
--Ken
fcotterill
Well-known member
Deep Learning is an application of Artificial Intelligence. Nikon first utilized Deep-learning principles to develop its matrix metering algorithm inaugurated in the FA SLR in 1983. This research project started in 1977. The engineering team took 6 years to refine the exposure algorithm with a sufficiently representative sample of exposed scenes.
The Deep-learning technology empowering modern ILCs with matrix exposure metering and of course AF subject detection is obviously much more refined and advanced using super computers. These train up the algorithms with huge databases of real-world images; however today's software tools are based on the same principles introduced decades earlier.
The Deep-learning technology empowering modern ILCs with matrix exposure metering and of course AF subject detection is obviously much more refined and advanced using super computers. These train up the algorithms with huge databases of real-world images; however today's software tools are based on the same principles introduced decades earlier.
Last edited:
John Navitsky
Well-known member
WRT to AI generated imagery, i think the bigger problem isn't what it means to photographers but rather how it will exasperate the problem we've had acutely recently, with regard to "what is true". I'm already starting to see a lot of content in my FB feed that appears AI generated, and I think it won't be far before we see where AI generated content is common, and implies or is ambiguous that it is a real thing, further diluting truth.
Last edited:
Camatose
Member
Where is the A1 $1300 off?
Congratulations Steve! You’ve successfully pried open Pandora’s Box 
….. in a constructive way. Everyone can do their “dump-job” on the state of our craft. Your new video is both accurate and provocative. This discussion is long overdue and frequently thrown in our collective faces….. Without digressing to…. “When I was a young whipper-snapper in photography…..” My thoughts..
1. Technology has been the blessing & the bane to photography, wildlife and otherwise.
2. AI is rapidly chasing down our skill sets.
3. Drones have created images impossible to obtain by “camera in hand”. Same for high end camera traps.
4. We have become very tech savvy to have the “wow” element in our images. Adobe’s LrC, for example, has the ability to enhance and change skies with a selection of
“pre-sets” to turn a gray overcast day into a blue sky with puffy clouds.
5. Smart phones are getting smarter. Everyone has one in their butt pocket. These multi-tasking gadgets have enabled the masses to record, share and communicate with others in their circles to show what and where they are doing it….including wildlife. Remember the idiot in Yellowstone that wanted a close-up of the bison with his iPhone?
6. As I write, my wife and I are in the Grand Cayman Islands. Each evening there is a beautiful sunset and hotel guests jockey for a good spot to get “that shot”. Last night a large group of vacationers whipped out their phones and pointed them “West”. Lotsa “oooos an aaahhhhs”. I saw a couple off to the side silhouetted and it clicked as the shot to get… I later sent this to the young couple who loved it and sent it on to their friends..
….. in a constructive way. Everyone can do their “dump-job” on the state of our craft. Your new video is both accurate and provocative. This discussion is long overdue and frequently thrown in our collective faces….. Without digressing to…. “When I was a young whipper-snapper in photography…..” My thoughts..1. Technology has been the blessing & the bane to photography, wildlife and otherwise.
2. AI is rapidly chasing down our skill sets.
3. Drones have created images impossible to obtain by “camera in hand”. Same for high end camera traps.
4. We have become very tech savvy to have the “wow” element in our images. Adobe’s LrC, for example, has the ability to enhance and change skies with a selection of
“pre-sets” to turn a gray overcast day into a blue sky with puffy clouds.
5. Smart phones are getting smarter. Everyone has one in their butt pocket. These multi-tasking gadgets have enabled the masses to record, share and communicate with others in their circles to show what and where they are doing it….including wildlife. Remember the idiot in Yellowstone that wanted a close-up of the bison with his iPhone?
6. As I write, my wife and I are in the Grand Cayman Islands. Each evening there is a beautiful sunset and hotel guests jockey for a good spot to get “that shot”. Last night a large group of vacationers whipped out their phones and pointed them “West”. Lotsa “oooos an aaahhhhs”. I saw a couple off to the side silhouetted and it clicked as the shot to get… I later sent this to the young couple who loved it and sent it on to their friends..
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Not A Speck Of Cereal
Well-known member
There doesn't have to be such an impenetrable membrane between the two. There hasn't really ever been such for a lot of classic photographers, from Man Ray to Ansel Adams. Use the tools you're given or don't, but don't judge so harshly those who produce good works with them.
I tend not be a purist, but I can respect someone else's mode of operation of it gets good results.
Chris
John Navitsky
Well-known member
also, WRT to AI generated content, i do think that features around the Content Authenticity Initiative (CAI) will start to provide some tools in this fight, and i recommend photographers adopt these features as they become available.
FYI - lots of comments on AI - in the video, I'm more talking about using it to identify subjects, help with post processing (not replace part of your image with another), that sort of thing. I put AI generated photos outside the realm of regular photography and think of it more as another art form. (using the term loosely)
Not A Speck Of Cereal
Well-known member
And also in post-processing, the industry is using "AI" to name functionality that is not at all image generation, such as the newer methods of selection in Ps/Lr, as well as noise reduction. In some ways, the term AI is used too generally and perhaps in time they will make better, more definite use of the that.
AI aside, my main take-away from your video is the part where we leverage technology to help with technical aspects so we can better concentrate on the art of our work.
Chris
Cameron T
Well-known member
Photography is about what's there. Editing what's in the photo is fair game. Adding things whole sale less so.
You're welcome to your opinion, but I'm also welcome to mine.
Also,ansel Adams is overrated
Doomrider74
Well-known member
Good video, Steve.
As someone who was into mountain biking for a long time, people first complained about the invention of gears, then disc brakes, then suspension etc etc, all the while these inventions were helping us push the boundaries of what could be ridden. I see most technology to be along the same lines: You don't use new tech to make your old habits easier, you use it to push your boundaries.
As someone who was into mountain biking for a long time, people first complained about the invention of gears, then disc brakes, then suspension etc etc, all the while these inventions were helping us push the boundaries of what could be ridden. I see most technology to be along the same lines: You don't use new tech to make your old habits easier, you use it to push your boundaries.
Wonderful images, Steve. Just seeing your series of pictures was a pleasure in itself.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
I agree with that Steve says here, with a few caveats pertaining to how AI and post-processing can be used deceptively. For me, an image that once processed is a far cry from what the human eye might have seen through the viewfinder is problematic. By now we have all seen "photos" that really are more applied AI and post-exposure manipulation than "image of the animal in its world." That does bother me. But in terms of how camera-related controls and features make it easier to capture what is "objectively" out there (I know that phrase in itself is problematic), I welcome the new technologies.
When people ask me (and they do, often), "Do you sell your photos to magazines?" etc., my answer tends to be something like, "Thirty years ago the photos I take now might have made me really famous; today, I am just another decent-but-not-outstanding wildlife photographer."
StefanSC
Well-known member
Always enjoy Steve's videos as they always seem to have that bit of common sense that plenty others lack.
That being said... I do think he only addresses half of the side of that coin and he does it with a bit of rose tinted glasses.
While technology is neither good or bad in itself and won't kill anything, it's impact on the zeitgeitst can harm photography quite a lot...
I have a theory that something problematic is happening with photography in the background (especially wildlife photography) and @Steve could help me validate/invalidate it with a simple data point: What is the trend for average age of your workshop participants in the past ~5 years? Has the average age increased or decreased?
I'm asking this as I have the feeling most technological leaps in the past ~5 years have been more about making it easier for older people to stay in the hobby (more automation, lighter gear) while inadvertently creating a barrier for younger people who don't have that much time/disposable income to enter/stay in the hobby.
And if I'm right, that's gonna hurt photography in the long run (less photographers means less innovation in images and a smaller market for camera makers meaning slower innovation in technology).
PS:
Just for fun, some numbers: in 2013 there were about 100 million cameras shipped. In 2023, about 7.8 million. Now, correlation is not causation, but it seems that the march of technology didn't do that much to halt falling sales.
And some anecdotal numbers: in 2013 I went with about 20 people to a camp for nature photographers. This year only 2 of those 20 people still actively do nature photography.
That being said... I do think he only addresses half of the side of that coin and he does it with a bit of rose tinted glasses.
While technology is neither good or bad in itself and won't kill anything, it's impact on the zeitgeitst can harm photography quite a lot...
I have a theory that something problematic is happening with photography in the background (especially wildlife photography) and @Steve could help me validate/invalidate it with a simple data point: What is the trend for average age of your workshop participants in the past ~5 years? Has the average age increased or decreased?
I'm asking this as I have the feeling most technological leaps in the past ~5 years have been more about making it easier for older people to stay in the hobby (more automation, lighter gear) while inadvertently creating a barrier for younger people who don't have that much time/disposable income to enter/stay in the hobby.
And if I'm right, that's gonna hurt photography in the long run (less photographers means less innovation in images and a smaller market for camera makers meaning slower innovation in technology).
PS:
Just for fun, some numbers: in 2013 there were about 100 million cameras shipped. In 2023, about 7.8 million. Now, correlation is not causation, but it seems that the march of technology didn't do that much to halt falling sales.
And some anecdotal numbers: in 2013 I went with about 20 people to a camp for nature photographers. This year only 2 of those 20 people still actively do nature photography.
Digital art is also relevant as a form of expression, as is the mixed media involving photography and other mediums, there is no single right way to do art.