CGI Killing Photography?

[Murchu]

... yes agreed, but I suspect that is a very parochial view. I've been surprised how advertising is so very different in different places around the world, and as in most things now the accountants run the world and they simple commission adds that work where they are aired

Its pretty instutionalised and fine tuned now, I agree. Targetted marketing is quite standard these days, with advances in technology enabling such targetting on a scale not seen before. Not sure what you mean by parochial though, by the way, as the application of Freudian subsconscious psychological theory in advertising is pretty widely accepted.

Probably way off topic now, in any case 🙂

While everyone seems to hate it, I can't help but think that the painters in the 1800's felt the same about photography.

I suspect you're probably right. Something like CGI would seem to offer an artist the creative freedom that something like painting would offer, while allowing the realism/ detail that the photographic image offers.

 

[Photo_Smith]

I'm not sure why you are quoting me because I never said that advertising doesn't influence, I simply said it does not have to influence a person's photography if you do not want it to. So CGI is not for some people, ignore it and do your own thing. That is the jist of all my comments. I'm not sure where I said advertising has no influence on photography... oh yeah, I didn't.

I didn't say you did. I'm quoting you because you said 'Who cares what advertising is doing..."

Well I'm pointing out to you that advertising has and will continue to drive the mainstream. It did with the adoption of digital and many other trends in the last 100 years.
I get what you say when you say 'it doesn't have to' but realistically it always has; so it very much does drive the direction we all end up taking, everything we see and aspire to is in or has at one time used that medium.

 

[shadowfox]

I think it's time for the commercial photographers to "roll with the punches"

Nothing stimulates innovation and creativity better than certain risks involving the survival of someone's profession.

 

[jsrockit]

Well I'm pointing out to you that advertising has and will continue to drive the mainstream.

I think that's where our disconnect is... I don't really care much about what the mainstream is doing either. My point is that these things only matter if you let them. Tools are tools. Even CGI, I would imagine, can be used in different ways that would not be so offensive. I'm not saying I'm immune to the influence, I'm just saying that you do not have to follow trends in your photography. The title of the thread is what I'm reacting to.

 

[Photo_Smith]

It doesn't matter is you personally don't care about the mainstream, because they are the ones that will drive the direction.
Think about the Kodachrome user, he did't care about the direction things were going and in the end he lost his medium.
What happens in the outside world not only influences us as artists, but also drives development of the tools we have at our disposal.
So CGI and video ARE the future, we just haven't seen it coming...

 

[jsrockit]

It doesn't matter is you personally don't care about the mainstream, because they are the ones that will drive the direction.
Think about the Kodachrome user, he did't care about the direction things were going and in the end he lost his medium.
What happens in the outside world not only influences us as artists, but also drives development of the tools we have at our disposal.
So CGI and video ARE the future, we just haven't seen it coming...

Ok, you win. 😀

 

[NicoM]

CGI is an art in itself. There's magic in making a nice landscape on the computer and theres also a magic in capturing one with the camera. They are two different things. Did the pencil/paint brush go away when the camera was invented? No, and it's the same situation here. There an many aspects of photography that you just cant replicate.

 

[semilog]

CGI is an art in itself. There's magic in making a nice landscape on the computer and theres also a magic in capturing one with the camera. They are two different things. Did the pencil/paint brush go away when the camera was invented? No, and it's the same situation here. There an many aspects of photography that you just cant replicate.

You'll never advance through the ranks of the Curmudgeon Club if you go on like that. Have you no ambition?

 

[KM-25]

So CGI and video ARE the future, we just haven't seen it coming...

Oh, I sure as heck did about ten years ago and made the needed adjustments and are still making them. And the thing of it is, these changes are not even the most profound to hit photography, those are due in about 6-12 years in my estimation. I have given insight into those in other posts but like the tidbit being discussed, no one wants to hear it and that is ok...

But yeah....meet one of many, many reasons I am parting ways with anything digital when it comes to my photography efforts. I am already better for it too in every aspect, enjoyment, fuffilment and income...

 

[dabick42]

Until I read this thread, I'd never heard of CGI.

Now that I've heard of it, I'll happily ignore it.

No big deal for us dyed-in-the-wool film using amateurs.

I shrugged an indifferent shoulder when digital photography and all belonging to it came on the scene, and this CGI malarky will get the same treatment.

Keep calm and carry on, as HCB might well have said - in French, of course.....

 

[Bob Michaels]

The narrow and insignificant part of photography that is impacted by technology can be easily ignored by all but dedicated photo-geeks.

A good photo is a good photo. A bad photo is a bad photo. No technological changes will move one to the other.

 

[Al Patterson]

I totally agree. A current analogous example of this phenomena is Bitcoin. Ponzi scheme within Ponzi scheme. This digital world we're creating is distressing to say the least.

I predict that within one generation or less, we(ordinary human beings) will no longer be able to discern reality from fiction at all.
That is assuming we ever have been able to discern reality from fiction. 🙄

Too late. Every election year in the US reality and fiction are already interweaved...

 

[TXForester]

In movies, cgi is o.k. for science fiction. For other movies it ruins it for me. Take a WWII era movie that involves aerial battles. I don't won't to watch cgi aircraft flying in a unrealistic. I'd rather watch an old movie on TV. In the old movies they stuck in actual film from gun cameras, etc. for the battles.

 

[Keith]

My son is an avid X-box junkie and while I personally hate the thing I'm occasionally a little gobsmacked at the animation quality of the big budget games. As mentioned before human movement is still pretty lame though!

 

[Al Patterson]

90% of everything is crap. Solution: don't waste your time on the crap.

Sturgeon's Law in action...

 

[Keith]

And I just stumbled over this on facebook .. it was posted by a friend who is a professional animator who obviously appreciates his roots and where his current career is based. Drawing tablets, computers and powerful software.

http://www.wimp.com/theanimation/

 

[Al Patterson]

.. anyway, it seem only fair since photography killed off commercial-artists

Ah, what goes around comes around. I do hate CGI though. The old commercial art had a style I liked. Too bad it isn't coming back...

 

[haempe]

The narrow and insignificant part of photography that is impacted by technology can be easily ignored by all but dedicated photo-geeks.

All commercial photography is impacted by technology. I wouldn't call commercial photography a narrow and insignificant part of photography, but thats a matter of opinion, I assume...

A good photo is a good photo. A bad photo is a bad photo. No technological changes will move one to the other.

Bob, I understand and respect your point of view... I would like it if it were so... but I don't think, it's always true.
Perception is influenced by the surrounding culture. This culture can be changed by technology. What can also change the perception.
Just have a look into the art market. Many current art would have been 60 years ago simply called crap.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Photography killed painting. Nobody in the world does paintings anymore since the invention of photography, and museums are being paid by collectors to get rid of their dead medium.

 

[edge-t]

Photography killed painting. Nobody in the world does paintings anymore since the invention of photography, and museums are being paid by collectors to get rid of their dead medium.

Are you serious? I presume you are being sarcastic. 🙂