Will peak photographic perfection be achieved in the next 20yrs?

Lee Rust said:

... However, my previous comment pertains to much more than just photography. To me it seems that in almost every aspect of our high-tech culture we are steadily offloading our collective abilities and knowledge onto the smart devices with their artificial intelligences. If our only concern is getting complex tasks done quickly and efficiently, then this is wonderful. However there is something that is incrementally lost in the bargain... our individual human agency. With every click or swipe at the icons of the latest app on the latest device we move just a little bit closer to helpless dependence. Personally, I don't think this sounds like a very happy destination. Somewhere in the middle there is a healthy balance to be struck between technology and humanity. We need to start paying more attention to where we're going, and perhaps the back-to-film movement is a manifestation of such an awareness.
...

Click to expand...

Well said. I agree with this! Thanks for responding.

Sean said:

Ok, so for most this a more emotional subject, where I was attempting to boil a main part of the image down to a technically perfect baseline at $25 price point. Maybe one way to look at it, in order to clarify:

The year is 2032:

Theoretical Camera Kit 1:
$25 price point, fits in pocket.
let's say a metalens mated to a 5 gigapixel sensor, capable of 6mm to 1,000mm focal length
software: full AI camera simulator, lens simulator and film simulation suite

Camera Kit 2:
analog Leica M6 TTL Body * Leica Elmarit 28mm f/2.8 Lens
film Ilford FP4

Theoretical Output 1:
$5 price point, single sheet of wireless digital e-ink paper, 17x24 inches, 10 gigapixel resolution, infinite contrast

Output 2:
full analog darkroom print

So you go out shooting with each system. You capture a scene with the theoretical kit and the analog kit then go home. You open the theoretical image file. You apply AI filters "Leica M6 TTL Body * Leica Elmarit 28mm f/2.8 Lens * Ilford FP4" you do some cropping etc. You output the image file to the e-ink display using analog darkroom print filters which specify papers, grades, and so on.

You then process the film from your Leica and make a darkroom print.

Both printed images are then placed side by side. You shuffle them about a few times and look down. You have no way possible to tell which is which. They are identical to the human eye.

Another scenario is Theoretical kit is set to "Holga, 10yr expired Kodak100, push process 2 stops, add light leaks" the image is then indistinguishable from a traditional Holga photo which would have captured the same..

All of these stylistic choices done on a $25 metalens/sensor and it is impossible to tell it is a digital work.

At this point, is there still an analog market? I think we're going to be faced with such scenarios in the future.

Click to expand...

I think we're already past the point of where digital supersedes analog. And if you're viewing images of scanned film vs. a full digital captured image with a film filter applied, there's not a whole lot of difference (well there usually is, but it's about the same as between one brand of film or scanner to another).

Same thing with vinyl records. An SACD or DVD Audio can blow away anything you can get from a vinyl recording. There's not a measurement from Vinyl that can come close to their quality. You can even add hiss, pops, and warble to the digital audio to make it sound as though it were from a true analog source. There's nothing a vinyl record can offer that isn't surpassed by those two technologies.

Yet both of them are extinct. Both SACD and DVD Audio were short lived. And vinyl is still going strong. The reason is the experience. There's an element of nostalgia with vinyl. And a care in the process that even new comers who weren't born in the age of vinyl appreciate.

I think with technology, there's a point of diminishing returns. Technology keeps advancing, and at some point, the advancements aren't very dramatic. There's a threshold for quality that consumers expect, and anything past that isn't too terribly valued. But there are other qualities besides the technical that can still add to an experience.

I think film will still be around in 2032. It may not be as strong as it is now. But there will still be those who use it because they enjoy the process. And I think digital will have evolved differently by then as well. For instance, I doubt we'll see a 10 gigapixel sensor (except in scientific corners). My guess is they'll top out at about 100 MP or so for consumer use. My guess is we'll see more medium and large format digital cameras enter the market, so people can take advantage of the look of longer focal length lenses. I'm guessing that flat nanotechnology lenses will have their place in the scientific community and on things like cell phones, or whatever the average consumer is using for photography. But hobbyist and professional photographers will still use glass lenses. Just like even though you can mimic pretty much an instrument with a computer these days, there is no shortage of musicians who play traditional analog instruments. They enjoy the process of playing them. Even if the end result is the same, it's the process, experience, and connection to the past that keeps them alive.

Etching and wooden typesetting were once mainstream technologies. They still exist as creative media, long after their practical application has been superseded. The future of film photography will depend to a large extent on how prices sensitive its advocates are. Making a silver print is incredibly expensive and time consuming compared to digital alternatives, if we only take the descriptive nature of photography into account. As an artistic process those constraints don't apply. OTOH it isn't uncommon for people to buy a new film Leica and predominantly shoot outdated film in it. That's an unsustainable commercial model.

Film is a first world phenomenon in 2020. Parallel technologies haven't influenced its decline for a decade.

blockend said:

Etching and wooden typesetting were once mainstream technologies. They still exist as creative media, long after their practical application has been superseded. The future of film photography will depend to a large extent on how prices sensitive its advocates are. Making a silver print is incredibly expensive and time consuming compared to digital alternatives, if we only take the descriptive nature of photography into account. As an artistic process those constraints don't apply. OTOH it isn't uncommon for people to buy a new film Leica and predominantly shoot outdated film in it. That's an unsustainable commercial model.

Film is a first world phenomenon in 2020. Parallel technologies haven't influenced its decline for a decade.

Click to expand...

Other than their common need for paper, etching and wooden typesetting don't require a mass-produced precision imaging medium. We can thank Hollywood for the survival of color film this far into the digital era, but black & white emulsions are much easier to make and will likely be obtainable far into the future, even if only as hand-made specialty craft materials. Seven years ago, the market for film was looking so bleak that I actually took a couple of courses to learn how to make emulsions to coat glass plates and AZO type printing paper. Now things are looking up for the corporate manufacturers and I see that at least one entrepreneur is producing glass plates as a commercial enterprise. This is very good news.

I just came across a pretty nice video commentary by cinematographer Steve Yedlin, and I thought back to this thread. I essentially agree with his main point: that choice of camera is mainly a technical one rather than an artistic one, and that the choice has very little impact on an audience's viewing experience.

In terms of a standard cinema experience, I totally agree with Mr. Yedlin. It's only within some very niche applications, such as stereoscopic imaging, where film still has an advantage as a display medium. And those particular advantages of film for stereoscopy are unlikely to be overcome by digital technology in the next 20 years, since there is no consumer driving force to create higher resolution displays. As you can see in the video above, both images are basically equivalent, and nobody really is demanding anything more than 4k; actually even 4k is often overkill. Not to mention the bandwidth problems with having to stream huge volumes of data.

I would argue that Sean's future is already here if you have access to the tools and know-how. I'm sure that as we go forward, there will be better and better apps to reduce the technical know-how and really bring these "creative choices" to everyone as per Sean's instagram app example.

raizans said:

Photographic perfection is when you can take a photo with a pocket camera and resolve so much detail that you can zoom in and see a tack sharp macro shot of the Big Bang.

Click to expand...

nah, perfection would be the bit before

Sean said:

It seems to me at the current rate a perfect 1 to 1 image capture of reality is near. At its peak, this would mean there is a perfection of scene capture to a level beyond the human eye and mind to find fault. Any further improvements in image quality from then on are pointless. I see this mainly happening in a convergence of 3 things: Sensors, Optics, Software(AI). On the sensor side, we will hit a sensor size/performance level that makes it pointless to 'upgrade'. At some point, you can not obtain any additional information from upgrading the sensor. On the optics side, we will see metalenses take over from traditional glass lenses (metalenses are flat surfaces that use nanostructures to focus light) that could provide a perfect capture. And the Software/AI side will be able to, through machine learning, etc, make any further corrections for a 100% perfect reproduction of reality or it can apply your style preferences (full analog look as well). Some will say, "I am not after a pure reproduction of reality, I am after an artistic abstract interpretation of my reality". However, the baseline of pure capture will be available to all, then you can do what you like in post-processing. I suppose at this point the only thing remaining in the camera manufacturing industry will come down to price, camera design and brand -if they can even survive? How would review sites and gear communities have anything to discuss if a $25 digital super camera makes perfect images and fits in the palm of your hand or in your cellphone? Imagine the $25 super camera producing images that would surpass a theoretical 100 inch Kodachrome slide.

Just pondering the not too distant future of imaging...

Click to expand...

Perfection is a utopian word, it never materializes by definition. Never mind it is as subjective as anyone chooses it to be. But there will surely be a lot of technological promises made that will perfect everything, photography being only one small part of perfectly perfect future. I could name a PS "guru", the "master" photographer, who would have everyone believe this is coming, so long as he could sell some more books ... perfecting it further.

The Leica II was premiered months before I was born. How could that have been improved upon? For some, just a few years later Exacta did in 35mm cameras. Then came flash bulbs, Kodachrome film, and for the rich, automatic exposure. Then, in a few more years, Polaroid perfected instant photography for the masses. Multi-coating revolutionized some types of photography. Digital capture and printing are an entirely different field. Photographers when I was born could foresee few of these innovations. Photographers of today can scarcely imagine what will come in the next 87 years.

Sean said:

All of these stylistic choices done on a $25 metalens/sensor and it is impossible to tell it is a digital work.

At this point, is there still an analog market? I think we're going to be faced with such scenarios in the future.

Click to expand...

For me, yes there is a point for using analog materials

. A large part is enjoyment is the process. I have a D800 with "The best" nikkor lenses to shoot with. I lost interest in photography because the process felt sterile. The camera itself was boring. I felt no joy going out shooting with it, so it mostly sits on a shelf.

Fast forward to 2 years ago, I took my old Rolleicord I haven't used in a decade out loaded with some film and the joy of going out shooting returned. The tactile feel of a well made mechanical camera. Just loading the film is fun. Knowing I'm using an analog, more organic process, the mystery of the chemistry, the anticipation of being made to wait to see the results. Shooting with a monochrome material, having to select filters and making exposure decisions, that changes how I shoot. For me personally, I've found a zoom lens ruins my "vision" to see the shot, I almost always go out hunting for shots with one prime lens. For me having, intentionally placed limits, by the gear I have chosen, inspires me to be creative.

All of this is why I love photography. A $25 digital super system isn't going to be any better than my D800 at being enjoyable for me to use.

Jim Jones said:

The Leica II was premiered months before I was born. How could that have been improved upon? For some, just a few years later Exacta did in 35mm cameras. Then came flash bulbs, Kodachrome film, and for the rich, automatic exposure. Then, in a few more years, Polaroid perfected instant photography for the masses. Multi-coating revolutionized some types of photography. Digital capture and printing are an entirely different field. Photographers when I was born could foresee few of these innovations. Photographers of today can scarcely imagine what will come in the next 87 years.

Click to expand...

Listen here young man,

There's no perfection until I have my ISO neutral ,128 shot film, digital back and a 10-1000mm f/0.5 pancake lens. Fully mechanical with full autofocus.