Author Topic: Are my photos going to be obsolete? (Read 14530 times)

PatrickA1 · « **Reply #25 on:** February 20, 2016, 05:33 »

Hahah You just Saying ..U believe that I am still Using 22 MP Camera From Last Three Years But I didnt Think

$:-\$ $:-\$ ..But i think u r right i have to update my camera ..I will

Nikovsk · « **Reply #26 on:** February 20, 2016, 07:49 »

Most of my images are 4MP and they sell fine, even EL.

* Downsized from 12MP camera.

Mantis · « **Reply #27 on:** February 20, 2016, 09:28 »

Quote from: Minscer on August 07, 2015, 16:55

Quote from: douglas on August 07, 2015, 11:05
Perhaps photography as we know it will become obsolete. Why go the trouble of dealing with photographers when you can generate the precise image you need in CGI? Instead of putting out a brief on ImageBrief, just feed that description into the next generation image creator and out comes the perfect shot assembled from configurable components with some lighting algorithms applied. No ill-tempered models, shadows to annoy Shutterstock, fees, releases or cranky photographers.

The really scary time will be when news photographs are generated that way too!

CGI is more expensive than photography by quite a bit. It's much cheaper to hire a model to hold a baby than to create that same scene in 3D. Not to mention it will never look natural and you can differentiate it really easily. 3D renders have this stiffness/unaturalness about it and the moment you can make something close to realism, uncanny valley will rear it's ugly head.

I don't think 3D renders will ever replace photography.

I just met with a big company who makes bath products and we were talking about continuous improvement and cost reduction. The one area where they saved the most was in their photography. They eliminated virtually all of the photography and went with 3D renderings, saving hundreds of thousands of dollars a year on commercial photography. It's happening right before our eyes, in some markets at least.

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #28 on:** February 20, 2016, 11:20 »

Quote from: Mantis on February 20, 2016, 09:28

Quote from: Minscer on August 07, 2015, 16:55
Quote from: douglas on August 07, 2015, 11:05
Perhaps photography as we know it will become obsolete. Why go the trouble of dealing with photographers when you can generate the precise image you need in CGI? Instead of putting out a brief on ImageBrief, just feed that description into the next generation image creator and out comes the perfect shot assembled from configurable components with some lighting algorithms applied. No ill-tempered models, shadows to annoy Shutterstock, fees, releases or cranky photographers.

The really scary time will be when news photographs are generated that way too!

CGI is more expensive than photography by quite a bit. It's much cheaper to hire a model to hold a baby than to create that same scene in 3D. Not to mention it will never look natural and you can differentiate it really easily. 3D renders have this stiffness/unaturalness about it and the moment you can make something close to realism, uncanny valley will rear it's ugly head.

I don't think 3D renders will ever replace photography.

I just met with a big company who makes bath products and we were talking about continuous improvement and cost reduction. The one area where they saved the most was in their photography. They eliminated virtually all of the photography and went with 3D renderings, saving hundreds of thousands of dollars a year on commercial photography. It's happening right before our eyes, in some markets at least.

If you do search there's a video out there explaining that ikea did the same a while back. Most of the "photos" in their brochures and on their website are actually renders now.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #29 on:** February 20, 2016, 11:24 »

Quote from: Mantis on February 20, 2016, 09:28

... It's happening right before our eyes, in some markets at least.

In certain areas CGI and 3D make a lot of sense. As someone who buys a lot of stuff online, I wouldn't mind renders of a camera battery or even a faucet. I can tell what I need to without seeing the details. But I wouldn't book a hotel on the basis of CGI or a render - my assumption would be that they had something to hide

There was a fun article recently about high end real estate developers using Occulus Rift VR to show people how the property would look (it hadn't been built yet). Other than some people getting sick, they were optimistic

Interestingly there was mention of drone video shot at different heights of the view from balconies or windows on a given floor - seemed like an excellent idea when you were extracting a few million more for a high floor property.

increasingdifficulty · « **Reply #30 on:** February 20, 2016, 17:51 »

Quote

But I wouldn't book a hotel on the basis of CGI or a render

You probably already have.

People and other living things are hard to make 100% realistic still but architecture can be rendered so you absolutely cannot tell the difference. Especially still images.

Check out this awesome video:

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #31 on:** February 20, 2016, 18:11 »

Quote from: msoulam on August 05, 2015, 13:03

I am wondering, if I'm shooting with a camera that has 28 mp, and in 3 years new cameras are probably going to have 40mp, are my photos today will be obsolete in 3 years?

How are you handling the technological advances in terms of old photos?

i can honestly tell you that i started with an 8MP dslr and now have a +-20MP camera.
but i never submit anything more than 8 MP to stock photo agencies.

why should i give them full res for 38 cts???
yes, i do give full res to my local clients who pay me 150 -300 dollars per shoot,
but i would be crazy to give these to micro stock or even getty.

as someone once said, "show me the money??? you get what you pay for!"

no, your camera will not be obsolete. in fact, i know of at least one person who still submit to stock with her PNS. and still make more money than i do.
who knows what you used to shoot

no one. .. if you do not include the original .