MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: End of Stock Photography  (Read 8621 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: September 15, 2008, 17:14 »
0
The end is nigh. There's some discussion on istock forums at the moment about the placement of 3D renders in best match. XXL images without a Hasselblad. I've been watching the portfolio under discussion (alexsl) and he's reached diamond pretty quickly. mevans there has a nice stable of sports cars that aren't encumbered with copyright issues. I have some images on one of the micro sites that consist of a human model composited into a 3D rendered office setting (I used lisegagne's studio as a basis for my architectural visualisation), and I'm very much a beginner at 3D. Photorealistic renderings of people have started to appear on the covers of fashion magazines. It may already be the case that some artists have a stable of virtual models in Armanis, able to stage endless business meetings. I'd say that 3d technology is about as mature as digital cameras were when they started to oust film.


CofkoCof

« Reply #1 on: September 15, 2008, 17:28 »
0
It is true that 3d has some advantages, but I don't think it will replace photography. It takes a lot more time to create a realistic 3d model than to find a model and start shooting. Not to mention render times, cost of software (maya unlimited costs 7000$ I think) and how hard it is to make some real life scenes (imagine doing travel photography with 3d, it's almost imposible). Also there a lot less people who know how to use 3d software.

PS: If you think alexsl is doing great check sweetym's portfolio.

« Reply #2 on: September 15, 2008, 18:02 »
0
All true, but once a model has been created it can be used indefinitely. Besides, one can buy models. One 3D artist I know says about 90% of 3D art uses the same mesh (an attractive young female, surprise, surprise). Blender is an open source alternative for 3D apps. And a lot of young people are learning this stuff. Probably more than are learning real photography (ie how to shoot in manual mode).

« Reply #3 on: September 15, 2008, 19:21 »
0
Digital photography could overcome analogic photography because the difference was just the technology, not the final product. 3D offers a different product, more prone to replace illustration than photography and has a different feel, and, by the way, a feel that is very peculiar and prone to go up and down with fashion, or when public becomes tired of it.

« Reply #4 on: September 15, 2008, 19:29 »
0
Digital photography could overcome analogic photography because the difference was just the technology, not the final product. 3D offers a different product, more prone to replace illustration than photography and has a different feel, and, by the way, a feel that is very peculiar and prone to go up and down with fashion, or when public becomes tired of it.

From a person who works in advertising, my company would never use the 3D graphics for any campaign, straight photography only.

Will people become bored with the little 3D stick men if they aren't already? The realistic 3D objects may do very well in the future, especially if you can't tell they are computer generated.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2008, 19:33 by epantha »

helix7

« Reply #5 on: September 15, 2008, 23:53 »
0

We're not there yet, not by a long shot. The software isn't so accessible yet, the result isn't identical to a photograph, and it takes a lot longer to create the scene. Sure that could all change over the years, but we're a long way off right now. Stock doomsday is nothing to get worked up over just yet. Maybe in 10 years this discussion will be more appropriate, but not yet.



CofkoCof

« Reply #6 on: September 16, 2008, 05:28 »
0
All true, but once a model has been created it can be used indefinitely. Besides, one can buy models. One 3D artist I know says about 90% of 3D art uses the same mesh (an attractive young female, surprise, surprise). Blender is an open source alternative for 3D apps. And a lot of young people are learning this stuff. Probably more than are learning real photography (ie how to shoot in manual mode).
You can also take indefinete number of pictures of the same model. But that doesn't work. People want new faces all the time. Also you need props, not only a model. Then you have to position the props, figure the shaders, lights, play with render settings,... There is no way you can do 100 hi quality realistic renderings in the same time that you shoot and edit photos. Buying models means less profit, also making investments which may or may not repay themselves.

Blender is ok, but the GUI sux and there are many things missing compared to other packages.

« Reply #7 on: September 16, 2008, 06:04 »
0
I'll be working to have photorealistic 3D models of people online within a year, and my day job is not in the graphics industry. As to efficiency - remains to be seen.

« Reply #8 on: September 16, 2008, 18:24 »
0
In my opinion, you'll have to work very hard, and pass the "realistic" point to reach the far away point where it will be impossible to tell if it's a real person or a 3D. Publicity has a need of "real truth and emotion" (or it's appearance) that nothing perceived as "artificial" can't achieve.

« Reply #9 on: September 22, 2008, 11:43 »
0
3D animation has taken over video for the most part when the subject is not human (I haven't seen a car commercial, cell phone, etc.. in a LONG time that wasn't generated in a 3D program).  But even with motion capture, computers still can't get human skin tone and facial expressions right.

Given how quickly the technology is moving, I think 10 years is too long..   Comparing what Lightwave, 3D Studio Max, etc.. could do 5 years ago vs now, I think we're closer to 5 years away from "hyper-realism" in 3D humans.

In the mean time, I have seen a LOT of print work where the human model was real, but the set was not.  Virtual sets are becoming more and more common in print.

« Reply #10 on: September 23, 2008, 06:52 »
0
I'm both a photographer and a 3D... artist(?) and this discussion is quite interesting indeed.

I think that 3D is not suitable for photorealistic human renders yet, but when you see the evolution of 3D for the last 10 years, it's quite clear that we are only a few years away from this goal IMHO. Maybe 5, probably 10 years, my guesstimate.

Concerning microstock, I would say that 3D and photo are quite complementary: depending on the subject, 3D may be the best option however. This is the reason why I try to master both techniques.

But I don't think that 3D has to be photorealistic anyway: there is plenty of room in microstock for non-realistic 3D renders as there is room for illustration.




« Reply #11 on: September 23, 2008, 22:26 »
0
Indeed, like this one - not real, but getting there, and has some interest anyway. Perhaps not stock though.

« Reply #12 on: September 26, 2008, 04:18 »
0
People will always to request to see real people on ads and other printing materials. Maybe when we become robots 3D models of people will be acceptable more. Also video is becoming more and more demanding. I started on IS as exclusive video and every days sales is better and better.

vgajic

graficallyminded

« Reply #13 on: September 26, 2008, 13:14 »
0
dats crazy talk, yo

« Reply #14 on: September 26, 2008, 13:25 »
0
Whoa, graphically, did you get a new shutter release?  Just watching your avatar. :D

« Reply #15 on: September 26, 2008, 17:23 »
0
Quote
Given how quickly the technology is moving, I think 10 years is too long..   Comparing what Lightwave, 3D Studio Max, etc.. could do 5 years ago vs now, I think we're closer to 5 years away from "hyper-realism" in 3D humans.
I read a book by a futurist writer Ray Kurzweil some years ago, and as I recall this was one of the things he predicted in the 2010-2020 year timeframe, and this was back in the 1990's when I read this. He has some even more radical predictions before 2050, like artificial intelligence exceeding human intelligence and the implications of that.

« Reply #16 on: September 27, 2008, 04:09 »
0
I think that photography will exist long long time, like painting, engraving, etc...
Only quality will be better...

When video came, many were talking that photography will die, but nothing...

Point is in human perceptions of reality...

Why little child draws house  in 2-dimensional only!? Because it easy to figure out, to understand or reach message... But also message must be quickly.
In adult's world perception is the same, but with more details,still and  again we need to get information very quickly...
That is main reason why we put pictures on  walls , we like 2D messages because is quickest way to get many information about something, on first sight...

Photography will exist , stock photography also because is:" 1 picture is 1000 words in a second!"
« Last Edit: September 27, 2008, 04:12 by borg »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
11 Replies
5571 Views
Last post March 27, 2006, 12:29
by leaf
1 Replies
2706 Views
Last post June 10, 2008, 01:42
by Clivia
2 Replies
2909 Views
Last post September 08, 2008, 20:29
by microstockinsider
7 Replies
2987 Views
Last post November 16, 2008, 20:30
by tubed
20 Replies
7231 Views
Last post January 25, 2009, 15:57
by shank_ali

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle