Is Technology Killing Photography (You're Not Gonna Like This One)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 1 жов 2024
- Is technology destroying wildife and bird photography?
Warning - you might not like what I have to say.
In this short video, I'll share my perspective on technology and wildlife / bird photography - 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 :)
Links To All My Other Stuff!
backcountry-ga...
Only thing to kill photography is allowing Digital ART continue to be labeled as a photo!
well said..
but that is in the hands of the viewer not the photographer .
@@composedlight6850 Problem is, there are many viewers that don't know. They just say Great Photo! Many can't tell if photo was manipulated or not, but same thing with using Photoshop, Lightroom, etc.
Most photo competitions have specific editing rules and require the original raw photo submitted with the competition photo. In theory, that should hep.
My camera is an 8 years old DSLR but I still enjoy MY results, don't do much editing except cropping. But what I love is being outdoors and able to observe nature in all its wonderous glory.
I'm a sports photographer, but I have a similar history. In 1986, when I was a fledgling photojournalist on the sidelines of a college football game, I was happy to walk away with two, maybe three sharp action images from a game in which I went through 10 rolls of Tri-X film (360 frames). I had only manual focus and my camera only shot about five frames per second. Now, I come away with hundreds of sharp, useable images from any game with a camera that can shoot 120fps and will pick out a player's eyes from 50 yards away. My biggest problem now is picking out the best of the 4,000 images I have to cull through.
Well said, Steve! Love the line, "The future belongs to the artists"
As someone that has been shooting since 1974, there are things that my digital can do we never dreamed of in 1974.
I hear you. The other day I picked by SLR from 2000 and realized it can't do faster than 1/2000s. And then outdoor indoor with the fixed ISO of the loaded roll of film...
In 2000 I spent 6 weeks in the jungle of Costa Rica. It was an amazing trip BUT the film was a very limiting factor. 800 ASA was simply not fast enough for most situations in the light available under the canopy. Digital has changed all that, and for the better. I was hesitant at first, but I look at my Z8 now with amazement on how advanced the tech has become in such a short period of time. Steve is right, this technology will allow us to be more creative/artistic than ever before.
I still have my large format, medium format and 35mm film cameras, with film for all of them kept frozen. However, I'm doubting that they will ever be used again except as museum pieces. 😉
Agree - I began in 1967, shortly after the wheel was invented - I embraced all the new tech while learning the old - Light & Light & Light. I still shoot in manual mode but not really like the normal manual of yesterday. It's the AI creating pics that are bits and pieces of other photographers work, that troubles me. I've been lucky to travel the world - the journey and challenge to get a "Wallhanger " were much of the trip.
@@gkassociates7112 I began my photography journey in 1964, just before the wheel was invented.... 🙂
I started in the mid 2000s and we never dried of AF being this fast.
I agree that the future belongs to the artist! The only twist is that the photographer also needs to be thinking like an artist with a creative mind and not just a camera owner. Good topic Steve ❤❤
A lot of people who think they are photographers are just people who bought a camera and a lens. They see a bird and they snap a photo, then keep walking, not thinking about anything else.
Also to the patient and thoughtful person who gets shots not seen or thought of before.
I'm not going to disagree with most of this vid, but I think there are some counter arguments. Yes the increased technology is great IF (a) one can use it and (b) one does not have to fight it to get what is wanted. For me, many of the bells and whistles on expensive DSLR's are not required. For me what makes a good photo is the photographers eye (and lens quality). The idea that if you spend vast amounts on your kit it will make you a good photographer is wrong in my view.
I think we've all become like heroin addicts, always needing a stronger and stronger dose to reach higher highs. Why does every pleasing or artistic photo need to be like "ooooo" or "ahhhhh" moments. We are setting ourselves up for disappointment when a nice photo comes along and someone says, "oh so what I took that 10 years ago." I do photography as an enjoyable hobby for myself, not so I can print photos to hang in a gallery for viewers to drool over. There's a photo channel here, I won't mention his name, but he takes photo submissions for critique. Many of his critiques are valid, and funny too, but he will sometimes dis a shot such as a landscape shot, because he is not getting excited, as he would from two birds in mid air sharing a worm. That's what I'm talking about, the photography heroin shot. After a while we need stronger and stronger doses, reaching a point where no photo with artistic or aesthetic merit will be appreciated. That's the danger with "raising the bar".
Well said!
Your essay on technology got me thinking about Jim Brandenburg's photo of the artic wolf jumping from one ice floe to the next. Looking at that photo you immediately recognize the skill it took for him to capture the animal in the perfect pose; in mid-air, it's shadow exactly inbetween the two pieces of ice, dark shadow against white clouds reflected on the dark water. Depending on his camera, he probably had 3-5 fps max, no af. So he had one chance to get the "decisive moment" (Henri Cartier-Bresson). And, he probably shot it on Velvia 50 or 100, a slow slide film with very limited dymanic range. How many photographers of his day could have pulled that off? Maybe a handful at most. Now, take your average Joe or Jill today with their Sony A9iii or Z9; how many of them could capture a similar shot. Most probably. But, they would be spending more time searching for the one "decisive moment" out of the 60-120 frames they shot than they would have spent getting the shot. Technology isn't killing photography. It's just making it less satisfying and giving me a smaller sense of accomplishment.
Exactly!
Back in the day you needed to known something about photography and learn how to operate a camera. Today everyone with a cell phone or a digital camera can snap away at everything, do tons of photoshop manipulations and then proclaim their snapshots rival the work done by Ansel Adams.
@@jb-xc4oh What seems to have been lost in these troubled and troubling times is an appreciation for "process." The act of learning to so something difficult well is the very essence of "craft" whereas a blind dependence upon technology to make things easy/peasey is the coin of the realm these days. It all started with auto focus, which at the time seemed pretty cool, and then progressed through auto this and auto that. Then folks discovered Photoshop and super saturated color became the end/all, be/all, solution to all problems. At that point myself and others started to say that what was really required was a development freeing the photographer from having to be there to press the shutter button. Apparently someone at Adobe was listening and so now we have Photoshop Ai which will allow the untalented to fake their photos. as the naturalist/philosopher Edward Abbey once pointed out "Growth for growth sake is the ideology of the cancer cell?" Is the disease of technology going to kill off creative activity and skill…it will depend upon how we either blindly accept it or reject it. Speaking for myself I'm stickling with Lightroom 6.14 and what talent I have in using it responsibly.
Some good points, but I’m not sure why the strange tangent of people feeling “threatened” by the tech. I think the better word to capture the community sentiment is “bored”.
I started off digital, A7rii, all the GM’s, big trips, was fun. Picked up a X100F and wow, everything made more sense. I was more focused on the composition, people, lines and light, and less on nailing a moose calf eyeball at 500m. It also sucked to lug all those bricks around, even the 24 1.4 GM feels huge. A few years later, picked up a F3 and D750 - switched to all vintage manual lenses, and my photography has never been better. I didn’t know what I was missing.
I believe if you think of photography as a technical endeavour then technology is destroying it, however, if you think of photography as a creative art then technology is just one of the many tools that we have in our creative tool box.
One-hundred percent agree. My sister-in-law was a mathematician at genius level. She was drawn to music for that reason. She may have technically been one of the best I've heard. She would practice over and over until she felt it was, again technically, perfect. The problem was there was no emotion or soul in her music. No art, if you will. So a technically perfect photograph, and that's all, isn't going to make much of a splash in today's world. Whether we like it or not. I'm a 75-yr-old beginning photographer (still after 5 yrs of trying) and I'm working hard to learn how to use my current Z6ii. I'm also working on learning how to best tell the story. It's a joy and a challenge.
I think the “biggest” thing we need to worry about as a photographer is not so much the equipment it’s AI
Just take a look at the latest beta of Photoshop one can start with blank canvas and create something that is in some cases quite amazing and it’s only getting better every day
I will agree with this whole heartedly. As camera technology improves, you are still the one who decides when to take the photo and how. With AI. who is the photographer???
The fact is I've never seen so many below average or bad photos since this boom in technology. Anyone is now a "photographer"
First of all, I'm not a wildlife photographer and I'm very pleased to see you are able to pursue your passion. However, I have been shooting professionally for over 50 years everything from 8x10 " to the current digital stuff. I shoot whatever format suits the job. Unfortunately, in the world I work in, commercial photography, architectural etc. I find lack of craftsmanship often produces lousy results from younger photographers, no matter how much they try to fix it after the shoot. Photography on many levels is far inferior than it was in the 1930's thru 1950's and there is no excuse for it.
Unfortunately, with the ease of A. I. corporations with be perfectly happy to steal our images and create whatever they need without the photographer. I have sued companies to obtain the royalties they owed, for stealing an image or part of one and publishing it without my permission. I don't see it getting any better.
I am an old man, I've been a photography enthusiast for over fifty years. I still shoot 8x10 and 4x5 among others and I agree that a lot of modern digital photography sucks.
I agree with pretty much everything you said Steve regarding the advancements in camera technology. AI is different though. With all the generative AI features in post processing software you really can seemingly take bad photos and turn them into shots that can match many pros. At that point I don’t consider it photography or being a photographer anymore. A digital artist perhaps, but not a photographer since the final image in many cases isn’t remotely close to what was actually experienced and captured.
I agree with that comment
I agree to you comment regarding AI usage. I think this new technology, which is only at it's beginning step, will change the possibilities for post processing completely, LrC already tells us some stories. Whereas I am not against the usage I still think that there is an urgent need to inform the consumer about how the content of information (pictures, videos, text) was modified with the help of AI. I still do not see too much activity in this respect.
This is AI art, not photography, although it may resemble photography.
Does anyone, other than you, care? If it looks good, and resonates with the viewer, that is what matters.
The AI implementations today rely upon a huge quantity of images taken by real photographers. It has shifted the trade, to be sure, but it has added another dimension.
I seriously hope it isn’t! I do feel more would get more enjoyment from photography if they studied the fundamentals of photography because they’re as important as ever!
the fundamentals of photography isn't turning a focus ring... the fundamentals are light and composition... which the camera can't do... advancements in technology just allow people who can't do useless stuff like turning a focus ring to also be able to realize their vision... and that's coming from someone who has been shooting his Leica M4 since he bought it in 1972 and never owned a digital camera
Thought provoking. In the end the technology allows us to routinely get great shots. But the truly artistic fabulous shots are still a vision that the photographer brings to light.
The question is : how many of those numerous great shots do you really like and want to share with passion ?
Agree 100%! As a family professional photographer for 30 years I have welcomed each new advancement, but first I had to embrace it and walk that scary unknown territory of not understanding it.
If there is one thing I value the most in this journey it’s educating myself constantly on the new offerings! Thank you for all you do for education!!!! ❤
Totally understand where you are coming from. My first camera - well, actually, my mother's, was a Kodak Box Brownie taking 620 reel film back inm 1957. Since then i have used a steady progression of cameras - Zenith EM, Olympus OM-10, Nikonus, until switching to digital in the mid '90s. I switched to Nikon in 2011 with a D7000 and today use a Nikon Z9 & a Z8. As a keen wildlife photographer - especially birds in flight, I love the modern technology and know I wouldn't get more than 1 or 2% of the keepers I get today if it wasn't for the amazing bird eye detection and super fast burst-mode shooting. However, last week I bought an Olympus OM-1(N) 35mm film camera for just £109 and am enjoying the challenge of going out and taking some photos tptally manually with everything down to me for better or worst!!!
All prior innovations were aimed at improving photography and make it better and easier, AI however will eliminate photography. That is the difference.
The only thing that kills photography is when you/we choose not to shoot. All these tools just give us more options to create and venture in corners of the game we may have not before. If you feel the tech is too much of a division between you and the shot..shift into full manual and go shoot. Bottom line
The Serengeti NATIONAL Park, in the COUNTRY of "Africa"?
But the "critics" are right about "AI". Because it's not about "capturing" scenes, is about "imagining" scenes.
Did you miss the current discussion? That's the problem, is not about the camera, is about the scenes, it's technology to get rid of the scenes, not the camera.
I sold $12k worth of Nikon Z gear and did something the UKs most successful wedding and portrait photographer as did and I have never looked back. My images look nicer, require much less post processing and the whole lot cost less than $1000. This is my kit:
Nikon D700
35-50-85 F1.8 AF-D lenses.
SB800 Flash.
There is no loss of sharpness and the images still have that dreamy colour and contrast that borders on art. Mirrorless to me looks like it came out of a colour photocopier.
Technology killing photography? how about the other way around? Technology is helping photography big time !!! I am old but I am not against techs. I started with Canon AE1 and Nikon FM so I am no spring chicken, my mentality is If I can just press a button the camera gets me a noise free sharp image, why not? why would I want to work so hard with my " skill" to get that same result? if I can take a plane and get to a place in few hours, why would I want to go get a horse?? yes, I do know how to ride a horse, so the airplane killing my horse riding skill???
Talking about Technology killing photography, ask any " skilled " Astro photographer if they want to take a modern camera with a 14mm F1.4 lens to go out to shoot Milky way or they really miss the old days and wish to go with their film camera and bag full of ASA 1600/3200 films. As an Astro photographer myself, I would say technology really save my butt.
I love my Nikon FM2 and AIS 500 F4 and can look at them all day and admire how beautiful they are, but it's the Z9 + 500PF that brings me home some nice wild animal pictures.
We are very close to where AI doesn't require a camera (source), photoshop (manipulation), a location or model\ subject (stock or AI created). Machine learning will teach the the AI composition. This will affect Professionals.
Actually we are already there. Making any photo you want without the need of those pesky cameras. I can sit at my computer and make awe inspiring images from scratch. I hesitate to say "photos". What is it then, photography that isn`t photography? And AI is only going to quickly become even better at it. I think this is much different than past evolutionary changes in photography. People are creating some great images with AI, they are all over instagram, but sometimes it bugs me as an amateur photog not knowing what they actually are. Wow, very skillful photo, oh wait... The only solution I see is just to do the photography you do yourself for yourself because you enjoy doing it and nothing else matters.
LONG GONE are the days where actual SKILL was required for good photography. These days, literally ANYONE can produce Professional looking photos with just a few mouse clicks!
I for one am GLAD this is happening and camera manufactures deserve this.
I love photography. But im glad that AI can now and will continue getting better at generating images with a few clicks that are award-winning.
Nikon, Sony, Canon etc... have been ripping off customers for ages.
- "buy our new camera with all these amazing features. but oh wait we took out some well loved features for no reason. But we will reintroduce those old features in our next model so you end up spending money to buy it. But when our new model is out with the features you wanted back, we will once again take out more features"
Spend $2000 on a camera, they purposely handicap it and remove features so they can just put them back in the next camera.
Or they will have a camera that's almost perfect, but something would be off "well you cant have 4k DCI video, you will get cropped 4k"
It's just endless needless spending cycle that will go on and on.
I pay maybe $15-$20 a month on a AI subscription and generate all the images I want. With good prompts, a little editing and practice, it gets me the results I want.
I just have accepted, I will never get a manufacturer to put out a camera that has all the features I want, without removing/handicapping it.
The AI images now are 99% indistinguishable from real images if done right. In another year or two, even a novice will be able to generate AI images that look 100% like real images.
D850 was my fav camera. When I heard nikon is going to discontinue DSLR, that was a letdown for me. They may not have parts in the future to repair D850. As for nikon mirrorless, yeah I'm not waiting ages for those lenses to come out.
I have plenty😅of birds In flight with DSLRs and Mirrorless equipment but I’m going backwards to rangefinders for a different type of photography.
I bought my first SLR in 1981 so I have lived through the advent of autofocus, Photoshop, digital, mirrorless. And now AI. The thing AI can't do is tell a story, so I tell a story with every image I post on social media, usually how and why the photo was captured and maybe the lesson learned from it. The downside of AI so far is that I can't appreciate a great shot. I don't "Like" images nearly as much because I don't know if it is real or not. You laugh at the photographer not having to be present, but camera trap images have been winning the BBC Wildlife photographer of the Year award now pretty consistently. The photographer was asleep in his hotel room when the camera fired and that rankles me.
Blunt opinion: “______ is killing photography” is an excuse mediocre photographers use when the quality of their work is matched by beginners who use newer tech. REAL photographic artists could pick up a potato with an eyeglass lens shoved into it and get the shot they want. Tech is only a small part of making ART. There is no question that technology is at the forefront of the wildlife genre in particular, however.
Example: a beginner with a Sony A9iii could potentially get more decisive moment shots straight out of the box on auto mode utilizing pre-capture then a wildlife photographer with 40 years experience who does not have a camera with the same capabilities. A worthy artist would see this as an exciting new path to previously unthought of captures instead of lamenting that tech is the great evil.
The technology is removing the barriers of entry. The only people "railing" against the new tools are curmudgeons who can't or won't handle the change. And it's not only photography, look at any skill-based hobby or profession and you'll see those same curmudgeons. Nail guns instead of hammers: anyone can build a house now. AutoCAD instead of pencils: anyone can design anything now. It doesn't end.
Spot on; painters have always searched for the better brush to paint their masterpieces, so technology is just providing us with better brushes. I, for one, liked your message today‼️😊
I can't afford to be a photographer anymore. Taking up painting.
What would a painter appreciate if his brush had some kind of autotune correcting everything to keep it nice ? (some painters would certainly like it)
Hi Steve,
Love your videos! While I can totally understand where you're coming from and admit that what I'm about to say could be viewed as an oranges to apples kind of comparison _ I do want to highlight how technology has hurt the arts in general. As a musician I have seen the world go from a place that afforded opportunities somewhat based upon a meritocracy where folks purchased the music they wanted to listen to, and then after the internet and napster til now_ watched as technology has put downward pressure on the valuation of music. It's really gotten quite bad. And with AI it seems to be getting worse. I believe the same can be said for imaging as well. Not just in terms of the preciousness of limited supply that is created from a lack of technical understanding but as well the automated processes such as AI which require zeeo skills whatsoever. There's a AI specific channel here on UA-cam where the person had prompted a timelapse of the milky way over Joshua Tree. When I asked what value such a thing (which looked horrible btw but it's only a matter of time) brought to the table he couldn't give me a straight answer. At any rate as it stands I do enjoy modern cameras and love all the knowledge I gained from you. All the best!!
Well, what should I say?! One thing for sure, digital cameraes and new technology killed all photostudios and get most photographers jobless. Why? Because now everyone could take "good" pictures, and a family member or a friend will take less money for a photoshoot of your highlights in life. You dont need a professional photographer anymore, or at least you think so, so that profession are now dead and burried!
The photographers complaining about the technology hurting photography are the same type of people who complain the pitch clock kills baseball... technology allows more people who aren't "photographers" by profession to get series shots now.
Now AI I do believe will kill some photography, we already have proof of some companies using AI instead of hiring a photographer and model.
I think I am going to both agree and disagree with what you have said here. This is not a one size fits all or completely black & white issue (forgive the pun). By your own words and evidence have made a strong case to support the statement that it is no longer much of a technical accomplishment to capture (for example) that sharp bird in flight image. You emphasize this in your video. Whether by technical prowess or "artistic inspiration" these types of images are more of a commodity now, and no longer unique. I would further suggest that with enough frame rate (video?) it is possible to capture something of interest by shear weight of number of frames. Not only have I seen this, I have lucked into it myself a few times. For someone like you who makes a living from capturing these types of images there is no doubt that what you state is true. But for someone else who purposely wants a greater challenge, say to capture something similar, but on film, you can not deny that is a tougher assignment, and made by choice. Maybe the goal in this case is not the revenue from or sale of the image, but satisfaction from the accomplishment of the task without the technical advantages. I really believe it starts with asking what is the goal and intent of the image capture in the first place? Why run a marathon when you can ride a bike? Why drive to a destination when you can fly? Why shoot film when digital imaging is so advanced? Why look for an image captured by a photographer when you can generate one through AI? I don't have any problem with what you have said, I just think it is not the entire story. Good, thought provoking discussion.
It is definitely making it harder for newbies to appreciate the talent and skills of the masters of yesterday and easier to instill the Dunning Kruger effect. Now with AI a lot of people will see cameras as tools of a bygone era. Kind of like old typewriters being compared to computers with word processors. Personally I enjoy the act of photography more than the images I produce. Perhaps I should take some classes or photo workshop or two. I’m having fun anyway.
I gave up when Most pics became Viewed on Chicken grease covered little screens in something called a Smart phone. Instantly micro crappy pics were made king.
One aspect of technology that you didn't address is the potential for AI to create images from basically nothing. Up until now, the camera has been nothing more than a tool to create the photograph. You correctly discuss the importance of the artistic input by the photographer. I am concerned that the future may not hold a role for the commercial field photographer. For example Adobe's recent advertising pitch to "creatives", i.e., people in ad agencies who purchase photographs, implies that we are fast approaching the time when they won't have to start from photographs made in the field or a studio. They will be able to order the image they want directly from the computer. Looking at the photographs that you used to illustrate your video, an elephant silhouetted by a setting sun easily can be created by AI today. The relative position of the sun and elephant can be specified in the input. I wonder if the number of people who are making photographs to satisfy their own personal creative needs will constitute a sufficient market to drive the innovation camera equipment that we've enjoyed over the last decade or so.
Hands down one of the best video's I've seen in a long time! 6,5 minutes very well spend. Many don't get it, the ones that do are laughing! 💪 Thank you for making this video Steve!
So now, when someone says, "Wow that's a great photo...you must have a really nice camera!" It will probably be true. 🙂
"Photography is still alive and well". Not really. Peak camera sales were over 10 years ago and have dropped greatly. Cellphone pictures continue to be posted online at the rate of millions upon millions per day. It is all but impossible to have your work standout. In my area galleries don't want photography in their exhibitions. Sadly when it comes to artistry, everyone seems to think they are an artist. That in spite of the fact that virtually no photographers have any training in the visual arts, not even a single semester long course.
Obviously. With the introduction of AI in the arena of photography, it is becoming Photo Art.
A better "innovation" right now is more affordable equipment with decent performance
When I am able to get photos out of the camera which require no editing, except may be cropping I will be happy.
You hit the nail on the head, I've been taking photos since the mid 60s, I love how the camera and technology has evolved. Great video
I don't like this at all. I love it. Technology makes photography more accessible to more people, which is a good thing. It does raise the bar as to what a good photo is, which is also a good thing. Excellent piece.
Imo it is killing the art. Cameras are on the way to never missing "the shot" some may think that's a good thing. But the game is getting oversaturated, it's getting harder for great images to stand out. I'm finding not much surprises me and grabs my attention these days, it's starting to feel like we've seen it all done before
Think you have basically answered your own questions.
100% agree. Well said. Thanks for the video, Steve. It's funny, I was just telling someone pretty much the same thing last night. Learning to use your camera is one thing but finding and creating your artistic style is something every good photographer needs to do.
Excellent Steve, The camera is a tool that most anyone could learn to use. It takes an artist's vision and sensibility to make a good or great image. Giving Rembrandt and the Average Joe the same tool, like a pencil, to create a drawing, Rembrandt would most likely come up with a more beautiful and compelling image.
Its not that im threatened by new features its more they are locked behind a rich wall that i will never reach :(
the one slight disagreement that I would have with the general premise (can technology "kill" photography) relates to the consumer, rather than the producer. because most consumers can't discern real from "generated", artificially generated photos certainly will cut into the bottom line of real photography (however defined). but from a producer perspective I agree with you !00%. use the technology to release yourself to become more creative
I agree that the concern is that the consumer won't care. As it becomes ever more difficult to discern the difference between a photograph and a totally artificial AI image, consumers will become like the people who, even after a meal at a Michelin 3-star restaurant, still prefer McDonalds. And it will affect every area of photography, even wedding photography. It's a matter convergences. As younger people live more and more of their lives online, technology will make it easier for them to create artificial lives online. Right now, a consumer can take two or three selfies on a cell phone, send it to a company, and that company can produce any desired headshot from those images. Any lighting, changes of hairstyle, changes of background...and it's indistinguishable from the work of a professional photographer. In two or three years, that capability will be built into the phone and even that company will be overcome by the technology. People who live their lives online will be perfectly satisfied with taking cellphone shots of their wedding party at a justice of the peace and having the cellphone make it look like a glamour wedding in Cancun. Right now, I take daily umbrage with people accepting AI images faking "historical photographs"...and I'm getting "So what, I still like it" responses...to _faked_ history.
Technology is killing photography only in one aspect: It makes results less and less rewarding. I shoot film, vintage lenses with digitals, and have a DSLR. I shot ONE perfect photo of a bird in flight with wings fully spread, with an all manual Tair-3FS 300mm lens and a Zenit-ES photosniper kit. This was my single most rewarding photoshoot experience ever. To do that, I pre-planned time, location, wind conditions, my position and angle respect to sunlight and wind. Spend 2 hours on part of beach where birds were trying to land. Birds barely moved like 10 cm a second because of the wind and I prefocussed on a certain distance, just trying to press shutter when bird is in focus. Tried like 7-8 times, one was a perfect shot at golden hour, despite I had to took it at 1/250 due to light conditions.
Now I can attach a Tamron 150-600 to my D800, take the same shot at 150mm (instead of 300) one handed with my eyes closed, then crop the sh*t out of it to get the framing to my liking and achieve better results. If I upgrade to a Z8, then I know I won't even have to press the shutter button at the right time, It takes raws at 20fps and camera will pre-capture them before you tell it anyway. Will I get "better" results? Absolutely, but knowing it wasn't my effort and skills to achieve that result makes it far less rewarding.
This doesn't mean I am against technology at all. Technology doesn't kill the "oldschool" alternative. If I want to go back to basics, I have the option to use manual lenses, film cameras, I can go back to my medium format camera from 1930s to test my technical skills. If I need the highest keeper rate, I'll of course take the most advanced equipment I have.
agree 100% great video Steve .the Zebra in the rain stunning , contest entry for sure. up here in Canada we have learned a lot from your videos
Technology has democratized photography. Nothing wrong with that, as long as we don't stop getting amazed by the beauty around us.
Sure it is, you can't tell what a real image is anymore.
I love the new technologies, which allow me to focus on compositions.
That's the most important part... turning the focus ring was never what made a photographer good. Composition, light and inspiration is what is important... the camera taking away all the annoying bits that keeps people from not being able to realize their vision is one of the greatest advances we have made in photography if not the greatest
Spot on! Among many other things, I don‘t miss a second of the days when I had to bring boxes full of slide film on a trip. Technology is supporting my creativity and my joy doing so, it‘s not replacing it.
I also think an advantage of all of the improvements in technology it brings more people into the hobby / profession which I would suggest for majority of camera owners it is a hobby. It allows the beginner / average photographer to get better results which builds on the excitement of taking photos and the more you are excited about something, the more you do it. The artistry aspect is always something to improve on and learn. Photography and golf are alike. You can always get better but you can never be perfect:) I think most people will agree with you on this topic Steve. I know I do.
I retired several years ago, I can only imagine the shots I would have attained with my Z9's and glass of today. I think the technology AI will replace the need for a Getty Images or individual photographer in the very near future if not already in progress. I have several friends in the Tech/IT field as well as family. They have shown me tidbits of what is in the pipeline, its crazy, companies will only need a graphics dept which many have and create any image needed. No fuss - no muss - copyrights are of yesterday.
I was explaining a scenario that you could explain that you wanted a photo of a leopard drinking out of a pond of water to AI and it would be produced in seconds. The young person I was talking to is about 12 was doing something on his phone and right after I stopped talking he turned his phone around and showed me that photo on his phone.
It's still going to be cheaper for a company to buy stock photos vs hiring someone and paying him salary to create photos with AI.
This is a very good topic to discuss, i personally thought that the revolutionary of technology is making photography less difficult to do, it does lower the threshold of it, and maybe the cost to make a photo, people might not need to learn the manual focus, with the aid of photoshop or similar software, people won't really need a really accurate exposure value in certain time, but the foundation of photography still there, we just getting more chance to get a good photo, thinking about more on composition/artistic work.
Well said. My first 35mm was a Zenith-E. It felt like you were assembling the camera for every shot and if you held your tongue just right you might get a keeper if your subject was a rock. A stationary rock. 40 plus years and several cameras later and I've spoiled myself with a Z8. It's like comparing a poorly made hammer to a mind-reading fully automated robotic welder. I wouldn't trade my initial experience on that rig. It was a brutal but fair teacher on the interrelationships between every setting on a camera, but I never want to go back. The bird photography that I enjoy today is simply not possible on that Soviet hunk of iron, or any other manual mechanical cameras from not that long ago.
Was going through that same thought process myself when I was out doing bird photography just yesterday morning. 100% agree with your analysis and look forward to upping my game again. Thanks for sharing 😊
Agreed ! In fact I think it is much harder to upskill in the artistic side of things than the technical !
25 years I've been shooting and I still have no artistic vision. But at 70, I've given up thinking it'll happen
Composition............ Technology will handle the technical issues, but you, the photographer still have to master composition.....
Hi Sir, I just want your opinion on something as I have always found your tips and tricks and techniques very useful since Dslr days.
I currently own the Nikon Z8 + Z 400 f4.5 and the Z 70-200 f2.8. But I want a bit more background separation and a bit more reach so that it's easier to get eye level from a safari vehicle like in Maasai Mara, Serengeti and also here in India (very dense forest unlike Africa). I don't do birding trips separately.
So, I am thinking of exchanging my 400 f4.5 for a 500mm F4E FL ED + FTZ II for around 1650 USD, used condition for 2.2 years.
I can't find any 600mm f4 or 400 f2.8 used and I can't afford the new Z or F mount ones.
Will it be worth it, changing to AFS 500mm F4E from Z 400 f4.5 or should I keep my 400mm f4.5 & get a Z 180-600mm alongside it for the reach.
I mostly rent another body for my trips.
Thank You 🙏
Well-said. Nothing wrong with technology, in and of itself. Artistry, creativity, and fieldcraft are still on the individual. I am not, personally, continually chasing the latest technology, at least for the time being, because I still prefer to see through optical glass, so, my latest/“greatest” Nikon interchangeable-lens camera is a D850, a nice complement to my pair of D5 cameras. Nikon’s BIG step forward, in AF technology, in 2016, in the D5/D500, is technology that I have fully embraced. Group Area AF, which preceded the D5/D500, was, and is, a wonderfully useful thing, too.
When in-camera GPS is desirable, such as during insect species counts that are sanctioned by official entities, I will use a Canon 5D Mark IV, with which I use a weather-sealed Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro Lens, with Hybrid Image Stabilization, which was a BIG deal, in 2010, when I needed the absolute best all-weather, stabilized ~100mm macro lens, for forensic/evidentiary/crime scene photography. (Yes, there are times when a tripod cannot be used, and/or the subject may be a living, breathing, traumatized crime victim. Time for “action macro” photography, with the best Image Stabilization/VR, AF set to AI Servo/AF-C, and the best lighting technology for the given situation.)
On the other hand, I occasionally use a manual-focus lens, on a D5. Nikkor 45mm f/2.8P, my much-loved little “pancake.” Zeiss Otus 85mm or APO Sonnar 135mm. Micro-Nikkor AF 200mm f/4, which I acquired for a really good price because its AF link does not work. Use tech when one wants it. Or, slow down, relax, and use Manual-everything. Life is good.
Know where to stand then “Choose your Shutter Speed with PURPOSE and your Aperture with FEELING. Then adjust the BRIGHTNESS with ISO.” - Joe Edelman
I shoot DSLR's, Hasselblad 500CW, a Brownie Hawkeye, a couple of different 4x5's, an 8x10, and a couple of lowly 35mm film cameras. At some time or other they've all been "new technology". Each system is good for what it does but not necessarily better than the other. Just easier.
AF was indeed a game changer. I just bought a used Birding Book that was first published back in 1980, and honestly if one out of ever 10 immages in that book had anything bordering "acceptable sharpness" well that how it was. So yes Thank doG for AF.
But, talking about this Topic, and NOT addressing the Majestic Cloud AI? FOR SHAME! Besides implying that AF was, and is always 100% well perhaps on Mirrorless. Thing is I dont use Mirrorless. So I need to master my lense. And perhaps still fine tune said lens to my Camerabody.
But, wheres fhe love, the skill, the ambition of simply being a hobbyist if I can just use some 200$ (9.95$ recurring monthly), bit of Software to artificially render my Photo for me? And no I'm not hating on PhotoShop. At least not in the pre Cloudy versions. Where PhotoShop was understood to be more of a Digital Darkeoom Image manipulater. Since displaced by Lightroom. I Never had a problem with either. But Provrams like Topez, and sigh Adobes AI stuff feel dirty, when you can't even remove a obstructing twig off your Bird in a competition. And yet its feeling like this level of sit back, and relax uncle AIs got yout back is going to steamroll its way ahead like or not. Has me questioning the future. Thankfully Im some saged dinosaur brained moron who hates Crop Sensors, and all that tedeus mucking about with them in the exposure triangle. Cause its, not just about the FoV. Im just not interested in moving much past the 5DmkIV (currently on 5DmkII).
And even with AF, the struggle for a sharp clean image is still very much real to me. As its just about the skills that I still need to pick up on, as it is the Camera itself, and even if Topaz AI were that good, I'd still would feel that I've lost more, than I gained, by useing that Software.
The problem is not (currently) whats inside the Camera. Having a LCD Screen replace the Mitror, and Pentaprism nets you the ability to see the Histogram IRT. Thats nothing to sniff at. Given my lack of discipline to chimp my Histos on an exceptionally btight, and sumny day, using the EttR technique, and finding out that 99% of my shots are overexposed, and unusable. Thankfully I've been able to control this better, having better understood what the Histogram is telling you. Removing the Mirror for good or ill, has just managed to simplify the AF down to the Sensor plane. Again no more fafing around with USB Docks, and or MFA adjustments? Sounds like a win. Ahh yes except you cant take your old glass with you to RF. (In b4 use an ef->rf adaptor). Bedides I like DLSR, more so than Mirrorless at this point.
I remember my first SLR year was 2004 and it was my dad's old Practica from 80s with not so fast 35mm lens. It was fun but only for some time. Buying basic digital compact in 2007 renewed my passion for photography and allowed to learn at fast pace. Then in 2014 I bough D5300 and Sigma 17-50 2.8 it was whole new world. Then I added Tamron 70-300 and started thinking about wildlife. Fast-forward to 2022 and I bought D500 and better lens.
Without technology poor person could never get into wildlife photography as a hobby.
Technology make gear cheaper and allow even me to get great photos of herons, harriers and passerines.
I think the future of photography is dying......because of the same technology....and the amount of content from millions of " photographers " on social media......😢
The main question is.... to take photo or make photo ?!?!!! there's big differences between....Deferentially technology improve photography ...since Light room and Photoshop ruin it with new integration of AI !!! This is my opinion
20 years ago, you had to have the skill, luck and endless practice to take "amazing" images. Not today, with subject detections and 120 f/s "machine gun" shooting, plus super AF even a beginner photographer can take a few "amazing" pictures from thousands of images, if lucky. Sure technology is amazing, but it depends on who and how it is used. Technology doesn't kill photography, it kills "amazing, wonderful" images, they become boring cliches because they are way too many and easier to take. Otherwise, YOU, are 100% right.
I haven’t finished watching this yet, and I will, but without completing it I think I know where you’re going and I will give my opinion. I enjoy the new technology and it makes a variety of tasks during photography a lot easier, but at the end of the day, if you can’t compose a good photo or pick out a good subject with good light, you’re going to end up with terrible photos no matter how good your technology is. Too many people in discussions forums and the comments section obsess over technical details but I almost never hear them talking about the ART of photography. These are the same people that never share any photos they made. They just whine endlessly and compare/bash brands. I enjoy the new technology because it helps me focus on actually finding a nice photo instead of worrying about the camera and what it can or can’t do because at this point, my camera has a lot more capabilities than I will ever use.
the same can be said for many other areas! things improve (wise people adapt) ...I still have my film developing equipment from the late 70s early 80s! great memories! back then people at photo huts etc. complained that magazines with ADs with equipment for home would ruin the"professional" industry.....still have my Canon AE1 & Niion F2
Almost every feature that makes photography "too easy" can be TURNED OFF! Is auto focus making birds in flight too easy? Turn it off! Is image stabilisation and auto ISO making low light photography too easy for you? Turn them off! I can catch birds in flight with manual focus. My hit rate is low, but I can do it. Same with low ISO low light shots, I can do them. And once I've proved my point, I turn all the convenient features on again and go on with my life...
Thank you for all your hard work. When photo contests ban the use of AI in "creating" an image, the sponsors realize images that contain elements (foreground, subject, background, and sky) never in the original capture can be produced. The age-old question is: Does the successful end justify the means? For example, I've post-processed my image, but the sky is poor. I change the sky, and my image "sells." That was the image I envisioned before arriving at the location; it just wasn't the condition at the time of the shoot. It's a quandary!
,
Great post Steve, many thanks for dealing with this head on! For me, I've gone back to using my 16 year old D700, and 12 year old D4, why, quite simply because they still produce outstanding images, just as they did then. I don't need the latest mirrorless (let's get on the bandwagon, just because) or 16 million AF points etc etc...At the end of the day, the skills lie with the photographer and how they use light, composition, angles, timing and so on.
40 years ago when I could only afford equipment that was 10-15 years old I could still make wet prints that were up to snuff with contemporaries. Now when I still can only afford 15-year-old equipment I'm so far behind with technology that there's even no putting me in the race. While I'm learning lighting and compromises I'm just finding out there's cameras (that I can't afford) that let you pick focus point just by fingering any point on the live view screen and with ISO available of 40 X mine (or more) with no higher noise that I get when I go into the extremes of 1600. Damn right I feel threatened. But while cameras just threatened and scare me, I don't actually mind them.
What in my mind kills the art (or will do) is it he AI editing. We will be "creating impressive images" not "taking great photos" any more and it will be about understanding the language of interface using the algorithms, not about artistic skills any more.
Art was art precisely because the required skills needed long honing and weren't available to everyone. When just anybody can and does create images, where's art?
See what happened to pop music with the common use of auto-tune. Photography will follow by means AI editing.
Frankly, I look forward to further technological advances in photography, AI or whatever, specifically developed for getting photos of Bigfoot and UFO’s (UAP) that are not seriously grainy and out of focus.
Interesting thoughts and comments. I've been enamored with photography ever since I was old enough to hold a camera that my dad would use on the weekends. Shooting everything from flowers to sunsets to his family etc. I developed my love for photography from watching my father and when I was finally old enough to buy my first camera as an enthusiastic teen it was a Canon AE1. I spent hours and all my free time shooting everything under the sun and learning all about aperture, shutter speed, ISO, how to develop film...you name it. My favorite leisure reading was Popular Photography and any book on photography I could get my hands on. Now? You have these great video commentaries on YT and many other sources along with articles, blogs and forums. But you know what? A camera is a tool. To help you achieve a goal. And that is all it is. There are many tools out there with many features but in a sense I find that sometimes these "tools" can be wielded like badges of honor and turn some people into insufferable braggarts. I hope I'm never perceived that way. Case in point. I have a friend who shoots with an older Nikon DSLR. A D500. Classic camera. She is a photoshop guru. Knows much more about it than I do. She always puts herself down for not jumping into the latest and greatest but a lot of times when I look at her photos I think, man her stuff is way better than people I've seen shoot Z9s and brag about how great their camera is and better than everyone else's! I guess what I'm trying to say its amazing what these cameras can do today. But ultimately in the end it's just a tool. If you think about it how many people really care or think about what was used to shoot a picture that they greatly admire? I know I don't. I never plop down all that technical detail when and if I post a photo. To me it's extremely boring. It's enough to know what it means and how it impacts the final image but seriously not one photographer shoots the way another does. We may be inspired but we are all different like all the nuances we might observe in each other's work. Sorry about my longwindedness. Just my two cents. Hey, I love technology! I just plopped down 6K for the fastest camera on the market. But do I brag about it? I hope not. And I hope I never will. I got it because I wanted to capture fast action. Namely birds. Flying birds. And shoot sports. So I got the A9 III. And I also want to dive deeper into landscape work. So I did my research and decided to also get the A7RV. The lenses available for these camera bodies are plentiful and amazing too. So YES, it is a great time to be a photographer. Thanks again for your insightful comments. I enjoy your channel and your work!
Yes. "Photographers" are more concerned with features they will never put to use. I have a Z8 and, i used 120 fps burst mode in a soccer game and i absolutely hate it. I ended up with approximately 14k photos.
If you gave 98% of today’s “photographers” the camera and darkroom gear we used back in the 60s, they would have NO clue. I know phone users that think they are photographers. My first Voightlander camera didn’t even have a light meter. Everything, including focusing was done while keeping your fingers crossed, making notes, and waiting a week or more to see the results, unless you had a darkroom. Haha😄, enough said.
Thanks for making this one. I think the great thing about the technology is that great photography is now in my hands. My average bird outing now, would have 40 years ago required three cameras, two assistants, $400 in film, lots of good luck, and months in a high-end dark room. Now, I take 500 exposures, and process my 12 best in a few hours. I produce photos I like, and that's all I care about.
Got my first SLR in 1970. I could only afford slide film so maximum iso was 25, It took three weeks to get the stuff back from the developers to even see if you got a shot. I learned how to use auto exposure and generally trust it but I still think AF is highly problematic for bird photography in general as the AF can't reliably distinguish birds from trees. I have had video cameras just lock up and quit recording because the subjecty went to infinity and the AF quit. I need the ability to manually focus the camera on many occasions. While I'd never go back to film, we can always improve.
NO ! Photography will survive AI, just look at the interest of analog photography, old compact digital cameras and vinyl record albums, there are a trend towards non-computer ! I will keep on with "normal" digital photography as millions other will ! Without AI !!!
A timely video Steve, as today I got my bucket list shot of an Osprey diving towards me with talons out. I'm shooting a Nikon D500/500PF combo, but know that eye AF on a mirrorless camera would have given me an advantage in sharpness, so I totally agree with your viewpoint. Technical advantages are great, but one still needs to be an "artist". Cheers.
When I saw the headline for this video in my email, my first reaction was “where’s Steve gonna go with this”? Happy to say you largely went where I thought you would. That the quality of photographs could be debated on artistic merits is perhaps the strongest endorsement of the technology itself. Great video essay. Thanks.
IMHO………No.Technology can’t compose,know when to pull the trigger,know what it’s shooting,set the emotion,etc.etc.etc.
In short.agree.
here on YT and elsewhere too many people, notice I didn't say 'photographers', concentrate on gear and incremental improvements in technology. These pundits don't really offer much in the way of photography be it wildlife, landscape or street etc, just bleat on about ISO, high burst rate, 100s of focus points and whether the buffer coping with 1,000 RAW files is poor. Others with the gear but no idea offer up random poor to mediocre images with no purpose, with street invariably backed by a piano and drums played with brush sticks. So formulaic and pointless. There's only a few worth listening to. As you say photography for many is about the machines rather than originality and creativity....I'll climb off my hobby horse now
been shooting since the mid Eighties and I embraced all the new technological advances in the film world through the 80's and 90's and was a master with film and darkroom. When the D1 came out in the early 2000's I really wanted one, but couldn't fathom paying $5000 for a body. I already had 2 F5 bodies and 3 F100 bodies that I loved. But I took Moose Peterson out to shoot musk ox with me in Alaska in spring of 2002 and he was already shooting with the D1h and D1X bodies that hadn't even been announced yet. I was enthralled by them and how he just kept on shooting while I was changing film or bodies during action. Then at the end of the day, he would upload his shots to his laptop and cull the bad ones and be ready to send images to publishers as soon as we could get back to civilization. And I was writing notes on each roll of slide film my settings and whatnot, knowing it would be at least another week till I could even see them. Let alone edit them. He then asked me how many rolls of film had I brought with me for that trip (40) and how much did it cost to purchase and develop those 40 rolls? once we did the math we realized it wouldn't only take me a few trips before I would have spent over $5000 on film. So he offered to sell me his D1 for $2500 and had it refurbished by Nikon. I sold off all my film bodies except one and bought the D1. It changed my style of photography forever. Learning curve was steep for figuring out photoshop, digital darkroom, storage options etc. but I LOVE digital now. So when the Z bodies were introduced, I decided to get one and not fall behind again on the tech advances. I now have two Z9 bodies, a Z6ii and have sold all my F mount lenses for the considerably lighter and faster Z mount lenses. Big expenditure out of pocket, but so worth it to me. I still have so much to learn with video editing and digital darkroom as the technology advances faster than I can keep up sometimes. I use a little bit of AI but still try to do most my editing myself.
No, technology is not killing photography. One still has to compose a photo, know how to use the technology, and get the shot. In my mind the most significant element affecting photography these days are these editing programs that can literally do anything with a photo no matter how bad it was when the photo was taken. Even amateurs like me can and do use them to produce a significantly better end result than the one with which we started out. To me the editing is where the "cheating" takes place. Modern editing programs don't kill photography but they sure do allow us to put out a photo far better than the one in the camera. Love your channel. Thanks for discussing this subject.
I've been teaching digital photography for 26 years. I feared and loathed the technology for years prior to finally buying a Nikon D80 in 2007. I never looked back after that purchase, to the point where I refuse to teach darkroom photography. I am energized by educating myself on new camera and photoshop techniques and advancing my student and personal work. In the end, you still need the artistic knowledge of the Elements and Principles of art/design/photography to elevated your images to premiere quality.
well, answering your question... I've gone all the other way arround. The easiest to use cameras I mostly use are film cameras 90 years old without autofocus, light meter or even linked film advance. And I make my own dry collodion plates & paper calotypes like in the 1860's: two days to prepare in the darkroom, exposures of 3 to 15 minutes and 30 minutes more in acid developer. Talk of easy works he he he...
I remember with Film-Kameras (like Nikon FM2) it was nearly impossible to get a sharp Volley-Ball picture, indoor.
Now Its easy. But it's still not easy to get a good picture. 🙂
Your point makes sense. The tech is forcing photographers to “up their game” artistically. A similar analogy that in my trade is the CPA exam. In the 70s cheap calculators weren’t around- we had to use pencil & paper for calculations. Then they later allowed calculators, & people wrongly believed it made the exam easier, but in fact they made the exam questions more complicated to use up the time previously used for long-division!😆
I’ve been making my living for 38 years with photography and cameras. I enjoy the new tech. It’s surpassed my imagination. I do enjoy the classic gear though.
This is not an easy answer subject...
It has always been about money not just technology.
With modern advances in camera gear the better technology is available in more cameras, at the same time the entry level price point keeps going up.
You can be the worlds best story telling photographer but if you can not get to the location you can not take the photo - so Money is required
a 400mm F/2.8 or F/4 or 600mm F/4 cost a lot of money, with new technology and better high ISO performance an F/5.6 and F/8 lens can get you the photos but they are not the same.
Having the skills and the technology and the finances for certain types of photography will always make the photos rarer and more desirable.
I'm a professional portrait photographer this probably has the lowest entry price point, but I believe it requires a lot of skill, any camera from last 10 years, and a cheap 50mm F/1.8 lens and you're good to go.... hire a studio for an hour, or a day....
But learning and mastering lighting is not something you can buy.
Alternatively wildlife photography may have the highest entry price point, long focal length lenses, cameras with Animal detect, and expenses to travel to the location... but maybe gets the most assistance from modern cameras like you say, making photos of sharp images of wildlife the norm .
The real worry in photography is text generated photos, that will probably kill stock photography.... As it is getting better and better.
Those photos in the managers office of the local bank may soon just be AI generated rather than sourced