I'm probably going to get flamed for this, but don't tell me I didn't warn you...
By 2020, a 7 year old could download an app onto their smartphone and have their photograph displayed on the Smithsonian the next day.
By 2025, the photography industry will become bankrupt and photography will disappear as an art form altogether.
During the first decade of the 21st century, film cameras were replaced by digital cameras. Dedicated digital cameras are now following the same path into oblivion with the advent of high-quality smartphone cameras.
Furthermore (and this is the important part that others often forget to mention)... The law of diminishing returns will result in the commoditization of photographic equipment to the point where a phone's camera is not even mentioned as part of a phone's specifications since every smartphone manufactured past 2025 will have a camera so advanced that any distinctions between brands will become meaningless.
My advice: Don't take that photography degree. If you have shares in Nikon, Olympus, Fujifilm, etc. you should prepare to sell them in the coming years.
Just to put it into perspective, the average smartphone 10 years ago had 10 times less megapixels than today and was 10 times more expensive. Now imagine a 2025 smartphone with a camera 10 times better than the 41MP 808 PureView, and is 10 times cheaper.
The photography industry will be completely cannibalized by the smartphone industry. The only hope is that companies making dedicated digital cameras today will change their business strategies towards supplying components for companies like Apple and Samsung.
>>2701975
>10 times less megapixels
>thinks more megapixels means a better picture
Opinion discarded
>>2701980
If you want an actual example, this is the kind of photograph that a $600 smartphone from 10 years ago produced.
>>2701984
another picture.
>>2701973
But none of that is replacing skill/knowledge as the primary distinction between a good/bad photographer.
There's a reason all my friends give me their smartphone to take their picture - and it's only partly because they don't want me in it.
>>2701984
That has nothing to do with the megapixels you retard. They still have a tiny, noisy sensor, and a shithouse fixed lens. At least do a tiny bit of research on your subject before posting absolute crap.
>>2701988
Here's a sign of things to come though:
https://fstoppers.com/wedding/entire-wedding-shot-iphone-and-processed-using-instagram-5286
tl:dr; An entire wedding photo shoot was shot only on an iPhone and processed only using Instagram.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 1387 Image Height 1387 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2012:09:13 16:04:00 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 670 Image Height 670 Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2701973
Su/p/ Bro...
Point and Shoot sales are already in the toilet. They've dropped 50% in the last two years.
Even Interchangeable lens camera sales are down. The market is eeking out some sales be selling mirrorless to people who already had nice digital cameras.
There's no coming back. The present day digital camera is going the way of the film camera, and digifriends are acting exactly how filmfriends were back when their babby was dying.
I agree with the other bro that photography is about a lot more than just the device, but there is a side of photography where it's a bunch of nerds talking about gear like it's their gaming pc.
I'll be fucking glad when that shit bite the bucket.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC (Macintosh) Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 2948 Image Height 2127 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 307 dpi Vertical Resolution 307 dpi Image Created 2014:12:15 09:07:45 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 640 Image Height 499
>>2702000
i actually expected a lot better but then i saw iphone 4. dunno what the 6 would've done, i hear the camera is amazing.
of course either way you have one focal length and negligable ISO adjustment without much noise.
the results speak for themselves, the photos technically aren't very good. if they're happy with them that's all that matters. maybe what people consider a good photo to be is changing. people throw instagram filters over so much shit.
And art cant disappear, even if no one buys or sell.
Piece of shit.
As the natural resources needed to produce the massive amount of technologie we buy and use today are getting more and more expensive, I don't think smartphones will be ten times cheaper in 15 years from now.
And for your info, film is still around as well as professional digital cameras will be around in 50 years. Even IF smartphone cameras ever surpass the iq of "real" cameras, they still suck ass in terms of usability and reliability.
>>2701992
Law of diminishing returns. While an 8" sensor from 2025 might be much better than a 1" sensor from 2025, the actual real world difference might as well be negligible compared to the cost of lugging a dedicated camera around.
Found this quote from the Internet which goes into a bit more detail:
"Yes, a bigger camera and lens will probably always take a better picture than a smaller one using the same technology.
But eventually, you will get to the point where the need for a better picture is so specialized, it will be almost non-existent. If in 10 years our phones can take pictures the same quality as high-end DSLRs today, I can't help but think there will be virtually no reason to buy a standalone camera, even for professional photographers.
You can only make photos so realistic before you can't notice the difference anymore."
>>2702039
On the other hand, it's entirely possible that "real camera" progress will continue to outpace the technology in cameras and what we consider acceptable today will look like garbage in a decade.
Your entire premise relies on the idea that the technology in big sensors has matured or even stagnated, while the opposite is true.
>>2702039
What makes you think the average PERSON of 2025 will be able to take a good photo? I know the damn cell phones will be able to make beautiful photos, they already do. But we'll still have people taking the same photos of their shoes or their dinner and posting it online. The travel, experience and skill have always been the expensive and hard to obtain parts of photography, not the gear.
>>2702045
The human eye is not an infinitely capable machine though. Eventually you will reach a point where successive advances in photograph quality begin to lose their impact, and then the benefits will stop completely.
In fact, a similar phenomenon has already happened with flagship smartphone displays. There is little benefit over going past 300 ppi because anything beyond that is past the resolution power of the human eye. This point was reached 5 years ago with the announcement of the iPhone 4's Retina display and is now trickling down into mid-tier phones.
>>2701973
>By 2020, a 7 year old could download an app onto their smartphone and...
I don't see how that is a bad thing. Phone pictures have already won photo competitions. If a photo is good it doesn't matter the equipment.
>By 2025, the photography industry will become bankrupt and photography will disappear as an art form altogether.
The value of art photography is actually on the rise. As long as long as people pay for art photos there will be people making art photos. Therefore there will be people supplying artists with photographic material.
>During the first decade of the 21st century, film cameras were replaced by digital cameras...
But I still shoot film and will keep doing it until I quit taking pictures.
>Furthermore (and this is the important part that others often forget to mention)... The law of diminishing returns will result...
Almost any DSLR or mirroless you buy new today is capable of taking great pictures. Diminishing returns makes specs and performance MORE important not less. People argue over the marginal differences between a Sony A7R and a Nikon D800. The closer the performance of two pieces of equipment the more important it is to find which is better.
>My advice: Don't take that photography degree. If you have shares in Nikon, Olympus, Fujifilm, etc. you should prepare to sell them in the coming years.
If all consumer photography disappears today Olympus and Fuji would struggle a bit but they would bounce back because they are in many different industries, they can keep making medical equipment and makeup and be fine. Canon and Nikon would struggle more but they have a lot of patents so they could merge with some other companies or each other.
Overall your apocalyptic ravings are unfounded.
>>2702064
The "retina" display is just a marketing term. There have been improvements since the iphone 4 that are noticeable with the naked eye. Apple keeps calling all their displays "retina" but they are higher and higher resolutions. Resolution is not only about looking better, it's also about fitting more pixels, therefore more information, on the screen.
good image quality =/= a good photograph
>>2701992
>shithouse fixed lens
You should do some research yourself. Mobile phone camera lenses are actually better than 35mm lenses. They have to since they only project on a small area.
>>2702085
=/= != !=
Photographers will have to get a real job boo hoo.
>>2702000
The issue is the iPhone is fundementally limited by its size, unless Sony pulls a rabbit out of their asses, the compact camera market is dead because the iPhone killed it back with the iPhone 4, but for astrophotography, concert photography, photoshoots, a fixed apeture fixed size lens is extremely limiting (and unless you know of some formulas that the NSA would pay you your weight in gold that can do some amazing optical things, its physics!)
>>2702001
looks to me thats its actually leveling out.
that spike you see is from entry level amatuer videographers and photogrpahers. 07-12 was huge in advancements. Most people are new so the market is still trying to actually learn how to use the cameras they bought. The ones that stick with it will be a long term market.
point and shoots may be in danger though, but I think there will always be a market for dedicated point and shoots , though smaller than usual due to phones. though I'd rather have a point and shoot phone than a phone camera any day.
the market will just go back to it's niche liek it was in the film days. casuals will have their phone cams, prosumers will always have their DSLRs/mirroless, and real pros with money to burn will have their 33- medium formats (film and digital)
photgraphy isn't going anywhere. its balancing out.
>>2702099
>Mobile phone camera lenses are actually better than 35mm lenses
>>2702256
son of a bitch. Sorry for the typos. I hope you get what I'm saying in that mess.
![[HorribleSubs] Rokka no Yuusha - 08 [720p].mkv_snapshot_19.34_[2015.08.24_12.59.02].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/1GtJbF8.jpg "[HorribleSubs] Rokka no Yuusha - 08 [720p].mkv_snapshot_19.34_[2015.08.24_12.59.02].jpg")
>>2702099
What if camera manufacturers try to compete with camera phones by integrating a phone into their DSLRs?
>>2702039
>if 10 years our phones can take the same quality pictures as D-SLRs
It's not just about image quality, it's about ergonomics, it's about how it feels in your hand and how you enjoy shooting it. For all the good phones can do, shooting with one is such a massive pain in the arse, primarily because you have to use both hands shooting it and there's no real "grip" on it. Nevermind that there is no viewfinder, there's a screen that's big and bright and sucks up all your battery as you use it.
>>2702099
Yeah and I believe 35mm lenses are sharper than large format lenses for the same reason, but large format is still superior technically because of the size of the film sheet itself. Same applies to larger cameras over smaller ones in the digital realm.
>>2702146
People will always pay other people to do shit for them that they don't want to do, or that they think somebody else can do better than them. If you want a portrait done and you want it to look great, you'll be better off with the guy who's shot them 10,000 times and knows all about light and posing and can make you look fantastic, vs. the guy who just got his new iPhone 8s with "D-SLR like image quality" but doesn't know what the fuck he is doing.
>>2702064
Bigger better pictures will be needed for a long time.
If in 2025 a smartphone will take a 20mpx (20 useable megapixels that is) photo and a pro camera will take a 100mpx photo I'd still pay money for the later, if anything, just for the ability to zoom 2-3 times without loss of quality.
>>2701973
>By 2020, a 7 year old could download an app onto their smartphone and have their photograph displayed on the Smithsonian the next day.
7 year olds have had access to cameras for decades. the only thing that changes with a smartphone is speed. it doesn't change photographic skill. You sound like a gearfag who thinks the camera matters more than the photographer, to be honest, family member.
>>2702000
Photos kind of look like shit, but it's a proof of concept i guess. the only thing it will be impossible to shoot on a phone eventually will be long zoom ranges and shallow DOF shots. Unless you want some shitty software solution.
>>2702007
>maybe what people consider a good photo to be is changing.
what people consider to be a good photo is subjective. most people taking photos on their phone are doing it for the same reasons we did years ago: to document their lives. A lot of people consider a photo to be good if someone didn't blink.
>>2702000
>iphones
>intagram
topkek fucking pleb wedding
>Don't take that photography degree
Thank goodness I do this shit as a hobby
>>2702000
>https://fstoppers.com/wedding/entire-wedding-shot-iphone-and-processed-using-instagram-5286
A LOT of these photos are really bad and I guess if that couple wanted to buy shit pictures that's up to them but...
... god that was just a really bad album to look at.
>>2703452
Still better than the people who have Pokemon weddings and invite their extended families to witness their parents' disappointment.
>>2702000
I didn't think it was that bad actually. At least they look different then every single other wedding shoot in history.
>>2702000
>An entire wedding photo shoot was shot only on an iPhone and processed only using Instagram
BY A PROFESSIONAL PHOTOGRAPHER
And even so the pictures aren't very good. Can you really think if everybody was given a digiblad the day they were born that everybody would be taking national geographic tier pictures?
