What will photography look like in 20 years (if you exclude scenarios of catastrophe like WW3)
>people record 1000 fps videos with 70+ Megapixel cameras and select a good image in post production.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows) Photographer herbert Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 865 Image Height 636 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 96 dpi Vertical Resolution 96 dpi Image Created 2016:01:05 02:00:20 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 750 Image Height 400
Doesn't matter if you still can't compose for shit.
>>2864028
Composition doesn't matter if you don't capture something worth shit.
>>2864030
What you capture doesn't matter if there's no story or meaning.
>>2864031
That's a tautology.
>>2864033
I know, I just wanted to join in this passionate debate.
kodachrome will be back
>>2864043
but it will be made by impossible and it will be expensive and shit.
>>2864043
Is there anything at all going on right now that tries to improve the possibilities of film? Any company in the world working on grain free ISO 6400 emulsion?
>>2864072
well then film will be gone in about 10 years I reckon, when medium format digital cameras will be affordable.
>>2864017
Film photography will probably be an even smaller niche and film development in drug stores etc. will die out all together, the remaining film users either home developing (as is already the case with most b/w users) or be done only by specialised labs (as is already the case with most serious colour film users).
Increased digital camera intelligence will diminish the difference in technique levels between good and bad photographers, making it possible to select a general style and such, like making an artistically underexposed photo completely automatic by just selecting 'le artistic' setting.
Photography skill will be more and more just the selection of good subjects and creative composition, as all other skills will be more and more replaced by intelligent settings on consumer cameras. This will anger a lot of photographers, although there will always be a noticeable difference between a bad and a good one and noobs will continue to be angered by the fact that they cannot reach this level, despite all their handy auto settings.
Smartphone cameras will continue to improve and gain terrain over casual dslr use. The movement towards one device for all your needs, combined with this improvement will be a blow for the camera industry, which will have to lean on professional photographers and serious hobbyists (plus the select hipster) for the sale of actual cameras and the industry will likely seek out joint ventures with smartphone producers who will be happy to milk the brand names that are associated with quality photography to put on their devices. The continuing rise of the internet as a (news) medium, combined with a general growing appetite for information consumption will keep the demand for professional photographers high, though.
Serious question; do you all believe that film died out way too soon? I realize over 100 years of it is quite a long time but there are many good things that could of come of it but didn't. Maybe it could of gone the way of digital and had become just as more easy for everyone to use.
>>2864076
All of these things have already occurred.
>>2864076
Film is easy as fuck to use, it's just the scanning that is bullshit. At the end of the day, people want pictures on their computer, and scanning film and getting good quality is a fucking pain in the ass.
>>2864084
Not entirety, here (Netherlands) some drug store chains still sell film and develop it, although the salespersons are apparently oblivious of this. DSLRs still make ugly pictures if you use auto-settings and smartphone photos are still substandard all but the most cheap dedicated cameras. You're right, all these things have been going on already, but my prediction is that this will only increase. I'll admit, it's not really that much of an impressive prediction, but still.
>>2864085
True, I use it too, I think it's more fun and interesting and it yields better photos when used correctly. Indeed, it's the scanning that makes it irritating, especially when you realise you're just making digital images in the end anyways. But well, for me, photography a nice hobby so I do it because I think it's fun to do, not for other people to share with per se.
>>2864081
>Maybe it could of gone the way of digital and had become just as more easy for everyone to use.
That was done, it was called Polaroid, and it still has a niche. The inherent restriction of film is that its a physical object. It can only move as fast as a physical object can, it can't be losslessly copied a gorillion times, and so on. And once the internet, and most especially that vile cesspit known as "social media" became a thing, that disadvantage became a deal-breaker for the masses. They want to take a picture and have it show up on normiebook. Smartphones can do that, film can't. If your answer is to scan it, well, you might as well use digital in the first place then. It is impossible to overestimate the extent to which the masses prize convenience, and digital is inherently more convenient.
>>2864087
>DSLRs still make ugly pictures if you use auto-settings and smartphone photos are still substandard all but the most cheap dedicated cameras.
well remember that in the film era most people used shitty point-n-shoots, which had rudimentary autofocus and autoexposure. If indeed they had them at all, it wasn't uncommon to see fixed-focus lenses and cameras that just relied on the latitude of negative film. Most people make ugly pictures because they don't care to make them better and/or don't want to or can't spend the money on a nice enough camera to enable them to be better. And most people don't want to learn about focusing and the exposure triangle and composition and dynamic range and such anyway, and will actively avoid anything that requires them to think, they want to point the camera, press the button, and receive a picture. It was ever thus, since Kodak sold the first Brownie.
>>2864117
Well said, and absolutely true. I tried some old point and shoots recently. If you know their limitations, you can make some fun pictures with them, but that's really all you may expect. Whatever huge changes there may have been in photography, there is one absolute constant: the unwillingness of people to do actual photography.
I think flash will be as dead as film is today. On-camera flash will be unnecessary thanks to incredible high-ISO performance and dynamic range, and off-camera flash will be replaced by compact, cheap, and powerful continuous LED lighting.
>>2864452
Adding light and picking up detail less light are two very dramatically different things. Good light can make a photo great. High ISO can't.
>>2864454
That's why I specified for on-camera flash situations, where you're mostly using flash because it's too dark or to even out an exposure (fill flash) and not for creative effect.
>>2864452
I'd love to see the LED light capable of out-powering a 1000ws monolight.
>>2864471
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 75 dpi Vertical Resolution 75 dpi Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 490 Image Height 333 Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2864073
In the age of personal loans worth several thousand dollars, MFD is already "affordable" in a certain sense.
I'd even argue that, depending on the shot and circumstances, current high res FF D-SLRs can compete with MF film.
>>2864480
I don't think you'll have to wait all that long. In the last 20 years we've gone from LEDs only being useful for dim little indicator lights to replacing car headlights. I'd expect expensive 1kw LED monolights in the next 5-10 years, and in 2036 they'll probably be the size and cost of a speedlight and have a built-in battery that'll run them for 24 hours straight.
>>2864076
I would rather think the film userbase stays the same or grows since no one could possibly be using film at this day and age for snapshots. Any low-income household has a shitty consumer 50 dollar point-n-shoot in some drawer hidden away full of family shots from the 2000's on and the youth didn't catch onto this because they have - you guessed it - smartphones and social media which means limitless snapshits and endless media storage automatically sent right to everybodys face and never fades.
Those shooting film today like the inherent quality of film as a tangible object and the fact they need to print the pictures they want. And there's two reasons to do that: take pictures of your family & friends to have on your wall OR feel the need to pursue film photgraphy to reach artistic means, be it actual meaningful pictures or just enjoying film cameras.
That would mean, to me, that film stays the niche it is now and when digital cameras drift off and became more and more diveded into expensive professional equipment and shitty consumer plastic garbage while mobile phones start consuming the consumer-prosumer market, film stays the same.
But it might get fucking expensive. I hope it won't.
But yeah, film developing will probably die out and home development and enthusiast darkrooms take over their place as small circle clubs instead of a bussiness.
About the good and bad photographers I agree but when this seems to be the time of laziness and extreme unprofessionalism the truth instead is that many, or at least some seek knowledge and know-how in multiple areas including arts and proper equipment managment and so as the number of enthusiast photographers decline their level might stay about the same, although they might get more divided into shitty whiners and actually achieving hobbyist photoists.
>>2864590
Wow I wanted to make valid points but my thought just drifted off into fancy words and difficult sentences.
Fuck this I'm going bed
>>2864017
>2036
>not shooting 360 degrees stereoscopic for vr with a peanut sensor good for 1 million iso.
Ricoh GR 10 will still have dust
>>2864017
>What will photography look like in 20 years
it wont. itll be banned worldwide.
>>2864981
Surveillance state, etc. is included in "scenarios of catastrophe" which I explicitly excluded. Good on you for trying to be funny and witty, girls like that.
All I know is that apparently everyone will shoot Hasselblad, because they are about to announce a "game changer" next Wednesday. There are no other brands in the future.
But seriously I think that the 135 format will replace APS-C even in beginner cameras,because new tech is constantly trickling downwards.
Film will probably make a small comeback similar to vinyl records, because the few hobbyists that will be left are more dedicated to their craft.
System cameras in the traditional sense will make a comeback. In the film times you could buy different viewfinders and other useful accessories and now you can pretty much just buy lenses. But many mirrorless cameras now have changeable EVFs. I think manufacturers will have to extend the life cycle of existing cameras, because fewer people are nowadays interested in photography as a hobby, so the number of new bodies sold will decrease over time. This is probably due to phone cameras becoming better.
Traditional camera manufactureres will have to expand to phones. I don't think they will design whole phones but provide camera design and branding like Zeiss and Leica have now done.
Changeable sensors. Just a wish though.
Those come to my mind at first. I don't think it's going to happen but I'd like that there would be more focused cameras i.e. cameras designed specifically for landscape shooters and other slow people, dedicated sports cameras (well, the current flagships are) and so on. Now it seems that most cameras try to do everything but are not great in anything either. I also liked to see a very simple camera with only the basic settings and lots of mechanical parts.
Full-frame is now standard for ALL cameras, crop censors done away with
High speed cameras are now affordable, most cameras will be up to speed with them but not as close to actual high speed cameras, going up to 100,000 FPS without being darker due to shutter speed
Lenses as low as f1.0 less <$1500
>>2865751
if that game changer is under $2k then i believe you.
>>2865810
Don't. It was sarcasm. There's a possibility this will be much more affordable than previous Hasselblads but not affordable per se. Their CEO has mentioned wanting to create a more portable camera and expanding to new territories in terms of user base but I don't think use mere mortals are the target of this product.
>>2865813
hasselblad apsc body. trolls entire world.
>>2865820
They already confirmed it's medium format but that would have been hilarious. A direct competitor to Leica T.
>>2864017
red already tried market their shit as "digital still and motion cameras" with process of shooting as you described, nobody gived a shit
related:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2EB0PTAyME
>>2864977
ricoh will be part of sony, as others manufacturers.
There will be only two of them, actually: sony and samsung, mark my fucking words.
>>2865842
marked. but it'll be cyclical.
>2016: Why do we need all these camera manufacturers when they're all just repackaged Sony sensors
>2017: Sony is the only camera
>2018: Some hipster startup realizes that Sony cameras while optically great, betray the essence of photography. Buys Sony sensors and sells Fuji cameras.
>2019: Why do we have all these repackaged Sony sensors?
>>2865803
>>2865751
if anything APS-C will be the one to die off, in favor of m4/3 and smaller sensors. Normies want tiny. Even a lot of the ones that know something about photography and why a larger sensor is better still have tiny as requirement number one. And the glass you have to put in front of a full-frame sensor ensures it'll never be tiny. You'll have mirrorless cameras-for-the-masses in m4/3 and smaller, and a few big full-frame systems for pros and people willing to spend money and carry weight for an extra stop or two.
>>2865922
Have you ever seen film cameras? Those have the same format and are still small. Same could be achieved with digital cameras.
>>2865925
Not if you want an LCD screen on the back. This is the main reason DSLRs are so much bigger than their film counterparts.
>>2865927
Have you ever seen Sony RX1 or Leica Q?
>>2865751
>>2865922
Interesting, I have the opposite opinion and think that APS-C will become the dominant format. Optics aren't moving anywhere near as quickly as sensor tech, and it's already possible to make a full APS-C lens lineup that matches FF in every way, including DoF control, and do it affordably. That isn't as practical with M4/3, especially with wide angle lenses. You can make a relatively simple 10mm lens for APS-C and have it perform on par with a 15mm FF lens, for example, but you start to run into real issues when you need to go to 7mm to match that FL on m43, because doing so requires crazy retrofocal trickery and therefore adds glass and cost. The same goes for something like a 50mm 1.4 on FF, a 35mm 1.0 is a reasonably practical lens, while a 25mm 0.5 isn't.
APS-C sensors are only a generation or two from having all the ISO performance anybody ever needs, and they allow for smaller cameras and glass. Pretty soon the only reason to shoot FF will be to use legacy glass, and as manufacturers round out their APS-C systems that'll be less and less of an issue too.
>>2865963
>all the ISO performance anybody ever needs
And 640K of RAM ought to be enough for anyone, right?
>and it's already possible to make a full APS-C lens lineup that matches FF in every way, including DoF control, and do it affordably.
Yeah, but the people who spend the most on cameras and lenses want that extra stop or two of noise performance, dynamic range, or what have you, and they're willing to carry around large glass when they need to do that.
When they don't need to do that, they want the same thing as the masses want, which is tiny. Fits in a pocket. Normies already think APS-C DSLRs are rather too big and cumbersome, and their lenses (barring a few pancake primes, which the masses aren't partial to because they like zoom) aren't going to get much smaller, since the size of the lens you need is determined by the sensor size. When normies want more focal length, they don't want it on the wide end, they want it on the long end, which favors smaller sensors with enormous crop factors.
I'm sure some APS-C systems will stick around, but I think that format will surrender its dominance because smaller sensors will become "good enough" for most uses, and people, normies and pros alike, will take smaller when smaller is good enough. When it *isn't* good enough, and you're willing to sacrifice weight and cost to get the best, there's no reason not to go beyond APS-C to full frame. APS-C will get caught in a neither-one-thing-nor-another no-man's-land.
>>2865973
It's like you literally didn't even understand his comment about lenses but want to provide your input because you were raised in an environment that made you think your ideas were special.
>>2865963
Making APS-C lenses behave the same way as 135 lenses makes them just as big and APS-C bodies aren't much smaller either. It's also likely that 135 sensors will stay ahead of APS-C sensors in the future. And what anyone will need isn't a good reason to settle for less. More is always more and better sensor tech opens new creative possibilities. One more reason I'm going to switch to 135 format at some point is that I want focal lengths and apertures to behave the way I learned they behave. I started with a Nikon F-801 and now I have to calculate, what every focal length and aperture means. Not a big dealt but still annoying.
But the most obvious reason I don't believe APS-C will be dominant in the future is that Fuji is the only manufacturer that puts even a little effort into their APS-C system. Nikon's and Canon's lens lineup is just horrible and I think Sony will abandon APS-C even sooner, because A7 is selling really well. So the trend is that APS-C is declining.
>>2865975
I understood it and I think its irrelevant. Most people doing most things don't shoot at 15mm-equivalent. Cover 24-105 equivalent, which can be done easily on a small sensor, even at a high quality level, and you cover the vast majority of photos that the vast majority of people take. That's even allowing for him thinking that the quality level has to match that of glass for larger formats, which I'd dispute.
Sure there are some lenses that just aren't practical on some formats, or that can't be made to the same level of optical quality. I'm saying that most people shooting most things will shrug and not care very much if it gets them a m43-sized camera.
>>2865979
>That's even allowing for him thinking that the quality level has to match that of glass for larger formats, which I'd dispute.
You'd only dispute that because you don't know what you're talking about.
The smaller the sensor, the sharper the glass needs to be for the same perceived sharpness. That's why M43 glass is routinely the sharpest on paper, because it has to be to even be acceptable.
Why do you think $20 CCTV lenses happen to be tack sharp in the center (where theyre actually used)?
>>2865981
You're assuming I'm making a "whats technically possible or feasible" point when I'm not, I'm making a "what people will want/buy" point. /p/ will go on and on about how you only need ultimate sharpness and huge megapixels if you're printing big, and most people don't do that. They want enough sharpness for posting shit on social media and maybe making 3x5 or 5x7 prints. Hence most people will look at that current m43 level of sharpness as more than enough. They don't care as much about getting the maximum perceived sharpness, they care about the camera and its lens being small.
And in the small set of situations where that isn't enough, and they're willing to carry a lot of gear and spend much more money to get something better, why would they choose APS-C over FF?
>>2865987
the gearfags preferences filter down to the normies, it just takes a long time. thats why canon is still dominant, because the runoff from the professionals of the 90s is still trickling through them
>>2865987
>why would they choose APS-C over FF?
As a former full-time pro photojournalist who still does some shooting for work, size and weight are actually a big deal. Yes, I was lugging around at least two pro bodies all the time, but it was because that's what it took to get the job done reliably, not because I felt like schlepping 40lbs of shit.
It's particularly relevant for sports shooters and other PJs that are covering action, because APS-C's crop factor means smaller, lighter, and cheaper lenses for the same effective FL. A smaller sensor also theoretically means higher burst rates, which is a big deal for sports 'togs too.
Now that I get to shoot at a relaxed pace, I've traded in my Nikon setup for a Fuji rig, and it makes me indescribably happy every time I pick up my loaded camera bag and have to double check that I haven't forgotten to put half of my gear in it.
>>2865803
I love how everything you described breaks the laws of physics.
1.5 crop sensors will be dead
m4/3 have most 1.5 pros AND speedbooster
>>2864017
What the fuck does it matter?
Photography was perfected in 1954 when a roll of Tri-X was first loaded into an M3.
>>2866270
>not using motion picture stock
kek
mobile phones with lens mounts
Checking 3.6 million images per hour of footage? Boy. I can save a lot of time by just taking well thought out photographs. Although I guess an algorithm could check the images. I don't onow. Maybe photography is dead.
>>2866013
exactly :^)
essentially I'm saying future predictions will never happen
Prolly something like lightfield photography.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qXE4sA-hLQ
So you can extract way more information out of a single picture.
Also, possibly with the advent of VR and holographic displays, it will be what digital photography was to the advent of the internet and powerful personal computers.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2012:08:31 06:00:52 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 600 Image Height 401
I don't think film will die, the hobbyists market is pretty big, if the giants like Kodak or Illford finally throw in the towel with film then smaller companies looking for a piece of the pie would show up.
And if they do it might bring some new competition to the film game and if two companies compete for the consumers dollar then everyone wins in the end.
I'm probably being too optimistic though.
>>2865848
Sony cameras are shit in every way, don't get me even started on it.
The two dimensional still image will disappear in the mainstream. All images will exist in hologram like forms and you will show your holiday snapshits and your best creatives in the middle of the rom or the park or wherever you wish to show. Just as boxes of prints 6x4s in drawers has gone, as have the tapes and the discs, so surely will photography's relationship with the hard drive and the laptop. Images in 3d taken on devices controlled tweaked and stored by automated processors in something like the cloud will see photoshop and lightroom consigned to hobbyists. Most of all the death of the professional photographer is inevitable and is happening now...
>>2867226
>2026
>film producers stopped making film
>Project impossible start make shit knockoffs and charge $50 per roll
>only make 24 exposure rolls because they can't work out the thinner film for 36s
Only the dead can know peace from this suffering.
>>2867395
Luckily I started bunkering film a while ago
Paper will be able to emit sound and act in a way similar to live view photos by Apple. Digital will go straight to retinas and you will be able to move about the photo similar to the bullet time effect from the matrix. Cameras will use femto-photography.
>>2866257
>1.5 crop sensors will be dead
>muh 2x crop sensor will live because it has an adapter with glass
: ^ )
>>2864017
We will have lytro camera with 1 gigapixel.
No need to have autofocus.
It will take 3d image.
You can also recompose later and change the DOF and control the bokeh as much as you like.
Computational photography and light field photography
