"Video killed the radio star". Will computational photography kill the photographer?

[Reef Bass]

"Video killed the radio star". Will computational photography kill the photographer?

Currently, the lenses on phones can't compete with the optical quality of fine glass. However, with the advent of computational photography, will software be able to composite a final image that will be of sufficient quality to satisfy most people?

People often choose convenience over quality. For example, many people think easily transported, heavily compressed digital music heard through compact earbuds sounds great. They might feel differently if they were to hear a vinyl master recording through tube amps over large, heavy, wife and décor upsetting speakers.

Have we reached a point where computational photography is about to make obsolete anything that's not a medium or large format camera?

In the near future it may be possible that one will be able to simply point and tap a screen to take a picture which rivals the image quality produced by the best photographers with prime gear. Or will it?

What do you think?

Even if long term quality glass simply provides the best image to strike a sensor, will consumers care enough about what might be perceived as small differences to keep camera manufacturers making gear for enthusiasts who aren't large format professionals?

 

[Daddi0]

Cant answer your question but I do know my Kodak stock is worthless

 

[Misled]

Let me talk about your analogy first. I understand that more than most as I've been into higher end audio for most of my life. I have an I-pod, (though I listen through higher end headphones), and when I'm working it does provide sanity. If I'm sitting at home, I want the best sound I can get. Most people wouldn't spend the kind of money I spent on my speakers to buy a car, but they please me. I also have cd's and/or vinyl to cover my listening tastes.

I think a "real" camera with good glass, at least for me, is still the way to go. My wife has a P&S that isn't bad, and can do some of what my camera can do, but there are things she really can't do. With the computer added, things get closer, but I'm still old school I guess.

 

[Misled]

My main speakers.

 

[cody6766]

mmmmm.....Morel....Nice taste!

I think sales will drop to some extent, as we can probably already see, especially in the point and shoot department. As good as phones are for casual photography, I don't think they'll replace a good DSLR or mirror-less camera anytime soon. I also don't think that the bulk of the buyers of those cameras will decide that a phone is good enough. I think most higher end camera buyers want the glass options that come with their expenditure. A phone just can't match that, and probably won't. At some point, the size of the sensor and the glass can't be replicated.

 

[Reef Bass]

Canon predicts a 50% drop in the camera market in just the next two years: camera market drop

 

[Misled]

Nikon has been in other areas for years. They have been making high end scopes and binoculars as long as I can remember. Honestly I have three different spotting scopes and binoculars right now. All have amazing clarity!!!

 

[woodnaquanut]

Considering most cell phone users take movies in portrait, I don't think the bar is set very high for sufficient quality. Getting the shot has become primary to most.

 

[IPT]

I think it will kill it, it's just a matter of time. I can get some great images from my P&S Canons and I've seen some stunning stuff from the newer phones. Honestly, every time I travel I get more and more tired of lugging around camera gear. Sure, I love the images I get with my 500mm lens, and DSLR, but it's still a beast. The "common" folk would never haul that around.

I'm (or was) totally immersed and passionate about photography and even I'm looking for lighter, easier gear. Lots of folks have moved to mirrorless cameras for the "weight savings". I got some Sony's too, and honestly it was the DR that make me add them, not the weight. I just don't think it's that different. As much as I like having file sizes to go big (prints), digital upsampling is getting better and better and smaller devices are managing some impressive resolution and image quality.

We are heading into Aurora season and I was just looking at some images. Some I would have been impressed with years ago, now they just look "normal" - because they are common place. I think were also moving to a point where people want video. That's going to change stuff.

At the end of the day we have shifted so far with photography. With digital compositions, people going bonkers with saturation sliders, and all the other manipulation, I don't even know what should or shouldn't be considered "photography" anymore. It's a weird time, or maybe I'm just getting older and being unwilling to usher in the new look and practices of overmanipulation. I think you are right, and sometime in our lifetime we will be able to capture a moment a way we might not even be able to conceive right now. I'll be flabbergasted if in 20 years people are still toting around 500mm lenses with heavy tripods and a DSLR hanging off the back. Time will tell though.

 

[NikonN8]

It is just a matter of time, but having read this thread for the first time I have to agree with Jesse - in some sense, there's always going to be a purist. I got in to photography actually as a secondary supporting (maybe even could be considered tertiary) hobby behind flyfishing, which spiraled off in to bamboo fly rods. They've been largely obsolete for decades behind newer tech, but the newer tech doesn't have the same soul as a handmade cane rod. Likewise, we have some amazing capabilities with digital, but guys still shoot film.

On a similar vein and something to think about, how do you feel about CGI in movies? Personally I tire of it, regardless how good it is. It can make some cool effects but I know it's not real.