CGI Killing Photography?

@ haempe...

Quote : ''Many current art would have been 60 years ago simply called crap''.

I love that statement so much that I'm tempted to have it printed on my tee-shirts and displayed on the door of my darkroom... !!
 
Sparrow said:
... I'd have said Socratian irony ... expect it's unavoidable if one lives in Paris
Click to expand...


big-lebowski-gif.gif
 
peterm1 said:
Ditto. The more money there is in the budget the poorer is the resulting movie in my experience. There are only a few exceptions. But mostly, movie makers who place great store by CGI effects place less importance on you know those unimportant details like a good script and good supporting actors. By the time 80% of the budget is spent on a big name lead (no matter how suited or unsuited they are to the role - but an essential part of this formulaic approach to movie making) and CGI effects there is not much left over for the rest after all. CGI breeds cruddy movies suited only to 13 year old boys and their oh so mature tastes - car chases, explosions and tissue thin one dimensional comic book heros and villains. Hollywood and its derivatives have a lot to answer for.
Click to expand...


this peter, x10! all of it.
 
Other things killing photography: the Internet (while the Internet is killing paper; this may feel true, while the truth is far more different), video, painting, Photoshop, Lady Gaga, Eggleston, Liv Tyler, the New York Stock Exchange, Twitter, Instagram, Hipstamatic, smartphones, the DMV, the 2013-2015 U.S. Congress, sunflares, the concept of "only Levels and Curves", and most of all, tree-huggers. Proof? Kodachrome. Which in itself was the death of B&W photography. Nobody does B&W since they invented color.
 
Nothing is killing anything. I've done both pretty extensively, and to say CGI is killing photography is like saying digital cameras killed photography. It appears to me that photos are still being taken, albeit slightly differently. In many ways digi photography made photography way easier, but there were obviously some trade-offs. Barrier to entry is much lower, skill level required to get dense negatives and physically turn that film into stunning prints is more or less gone with the click of some buttons... But I digress.

Of course there is a lot of garbage CGI out there that looks very CG and very poor, that goes the same for all the garbage photography out there. Just cause the tool is available doesn't mean you're any good with it.

One generally needs a background in photography or at least a pretty good working understanding of the fundamentals in order to achieve high quality CG images. You have to understand lighting, color and composition, the general workings of a physical camera, DoF, lens distortion, etc. On top of that you need to know how to build believable materials, which usually comes from the ability to observe the natural world and translate that to some random little sphere on a computer screen. Not to mention quality 3d modelling technique, good render engine know-how, and some solid post processing chops.

One might think you'd actually have to have a broader range of skills to do good CG than take a good photo....including photography experience. So what additionally are the photogs bringing to the table to complain about another tool taking some of their work away from them? Some jobs, mind you, that aren't even possible to photograph.

I don't believe that merely trying to achieve photo quality CG should be the goal, in fact that's very reachable and not all that interesting anymore. Maybe 10 years ago it was cutting edge. And I certainly don't believe that CG is a better option hands down; many times photography is cheaper, faster, and plain easier to work with than having to bother with CG.

But like most evolutions there will always be those that want everything to remain the same and keep them in a safe little bubble. I say embrace it, and open up a wealth of options in your photography. Unless you have a better way to capture products that possibly don't yet exist.
 
When was the last time you got a hamburger that looked exactly like the one in the ad...???
People already know that advertisements are supposed to look perfect but the real item will not or at least will be less than...
 
I agree that nothing is killing photography.

As to this CGI replacing commercial photography business, who's to say that there aren't photographers transitioning to CGI? A quick look at the comment sections reveals a photographer with decades of photography experience utilizing his photography skillets in his "Product Visualization" or CGI-work.

The world is not over. We adapt.

As a consumer though, I do appreciate this product visualization because of course I'm going to go out and try it in person.

And doesn't anyone play video games? It was all about pushing towards realism.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom