I see not many understood the email analogy.
Private note to my brother: "Joe, I was just diagnosed with cancer. Gonna be a million bucks to cure this."
By regular USPS letter, only Joe knows about this new hazard and financial burden on his brother. But sent by EMAIL, Joe's employer, insurance company and creditors will soon know that the sender is sinking ship that they ought to abandon immediately. If you don't see that freight train rolling down the track your head is deep in the sand.
Is this really new to people?
have you not heard of multiple backups on multiple media, ranging from various clouds, multiple sets of prints and multiple archival certified DVDs and/or thumb drives (which must be distributed to multiple people). Hm?
I see not many understood the email analogy.
Private note to my brother: "Joe, I was just diagnosed with cancer. Gonna be a million bucks to cure this."
By regular USPS letter, only Joe knows about this new hazard and financial burden on his brother. But sent by EMAIL, Joe's employer, insurance company and creditors will soon know that the sender is sinking ship that they ought to abandon immediately. If you don't see that freight train rolling down the track your head is deep in the sand.
Is this really new to people?
To address the question, both film and digital are photography because the differences between capture methods are unimportant to the final result. It doesn't matter how you did it, it only matters what you got.
That's a fair point, and one I've made previously. Electronic imaging is only as good as the maintenance of it. Even if you're committed to changing storage and software constantly, there's no reason subsequent generations will have any interest in doing so. Without hard copies, data access is unlikely to last a generation.It's clear that something fundamentally important has been lost / has changed, when you need a computer science degree to practice photography and stop your photographs disappearing forever.
That's a fair point, and one I've made previously. Electronic imaging is only as good as the maintenance of it. Even if you're committed to changing storage and software constantly, there's no reason subsequent generations will have any interest in doing so. Without hard copies, data access is unlikely to last a generation.
Most people are prepared to accept that reality in exchange for cost effectiveness, and the hope cloud storage will defy all the conventions of the marketplace.
Kodachrome was phased out between 2002 and 2009 (ISO25-ISO64). Users had between 2 and 11 years to get their films processed.Heck, even analogue technology can't be relied upon to work or be available in the future: for example, try getting your Kodachrome developed in 2018!
Nah. I'm not a crusader. I just mistakenly thought it would create an interesting discussion.To the OP, you should post this on DPReview, Ken Rockwell always goes down well there and they just love posts on film, don't forget your flame retardant suit.
Nah. I'm not a crusader. I just mistakenly thought it would create an interesting discussion.
Do you not have a few letters that you keep, and consider precious? Or small photos of relatives long dead, with scrawled names and dates on the back? If so, do you have an equally precious stack of emails and texts?
Technically though, you’re right: I have no evidence that in 2018 people value real, handwritten letters any more than they do an ephemeral digital string of ascii characters. But if I’m wrong, we’ve definitely reached a sad and unfortunate place as a species.
a photograph is an image which fairly represents the scene captured by the camera at the moment of time it was captured with little modification (mainly adjust contrast, etc.).
In the time honored tradition of riding the horse in the direction it is already going.....
So, once more we have a process question, which I can try to pose like this: Is a manual correction such as dodging, or paper selection, equal and the same as clicking a menu item like "auto correct" in a massive software program?
As I posted earlier in another thread, Google AI will now make a whole new picture from a bunch of crappy snaps and snippets, and the picture is judged by humans to be "just as good as any photographer." So, isn't it completely obvious to everyone involved here that "art and craft" is being subtracted in the process of making images and computer brains are being substituted? So, to be blunt, any random, completely untalented idiot who can click a mouse can now produce an artifact which will be passed off as "art" or a "photograph" or an "image."
Virtually no post on this OT called for more than one sentence in response.
Let me try it this way.We need to understand the issues
Let me try it this way.
Before computers and AI, we had people called artists. Maybe they painted, or wrote poems, or sculpted, or took photographs, or designed buildings even. And that process called art, had two fundamental elements. First was the artifact itself. The artifact carries numerous traits important to society. One is beauty, one is political, one is intellectual, and so on including many more. Second, is the artist as a a human social force. In all of history, the artists are often responsible for reform, change and development of civilization itself. Of the two, I find the second to be more important than the first. Artists are filled with ideas that maybe others are not. The word "creative" ought to imply that with no further justification. The world needs and as always treasured human creativity. Writers, painters, architects, and yes photographers are important social critics and feedback mechanisms.
So, what is the underlying meaning of AI? Very simply put, it is to replace human intelligence and action with non-human intelligence and action. AI has already eliminated many human efforts under the rubric of Data Mining, which was a crude use. Now, as I pointed out in the several Google links, they are touting publicly their ability to create photographs out of junk images which are the equal of a human photographer. AI can also paint, and sculpt with the best of them. One simplistic and common view is: "Who cares? It's only the output that matters! All tools are good tools! Use them all!"
So, that satisfies the first fundamental of the art process - which is the artifact. Great! Google is the new universal artist! Only it isn't an artist, it's an AI network - a non-human pretender waving shiny new baubles at the public, from a NON-HUMAN (it's actually the definition of "alien" - mind). Real artists of the human kind will be wiped away because you can't complete with a machine that can create an artwork in a nanosecond. In a very short time, the artist as a human social force will disappear, and be replaced by a tyranny of alien social forces. And the creative human spirit will find no crack within this Google-Facebook-Television-Internet world controlled by nothing but software.
I'm old enough that I don't have to worry it will happen in my lifetime. But, the changes already are dramatic and important. Amazon destroyed the publishing and book business. Google and Apple and Disney are going to destroy photography and other visual arts like movie making. The public already thinks AI-aided films like "The Incredibles" is a satisfying replacement for "Citizen Kane." Live actors will become a thing of the past as animatons take over. Who needs All Pacino at $20 mil when we can invent a Pacino-like AI character?
The MEDIUM - film or sensor - isn't even remotely important or interesting as an issue. It's artists vs. AI, and the upcoming loss of the influences of the world's great artists, writers, poets, film makers, designers, and photographers who will all be wiped by the coming tsunami of AI-Everywhere. Some of our most brilliant scientists have been yelling as loud as they can about the dangers of this, but they are totally blanked out by Cat Videos on Facebook.
...AI is already beginning to overtake the digital camera systems, and before long, you will just send your drone off the porch with a list of subjects you'd like it to capture for you. Is that photography or computography?
Depends.Digital Photography is not the same as AI.
But that's not at all a reflection of what is ACTUALLY happening in the world. No one is offering that kind of service, or talking about it. See my quote on Adobe Elements and perhaps my other links in the thread "Can you compete with Google?"Again, the drone and AI could take your film camera, take the pictures, drop the film at a lab (or give it to you to develop) and have the prints sent to you. The lab can scan your photographs, put them on the internet, and AI could add them to other composites. Your issue is AI, not digital photography.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?