|
|
Post by herron on Dec 7, 2005 11:31:53 GMT -5
Ran across this article, and could not help but think (sadly) of when the camera would eventually evolve to the point of not even needing the photographer! If this line of research continues to its natural end, a camera can eventually be set up (or maybe it can be programmed to set itself up) and shoot 360-degree images continuously without bothering to set aperture, speed or even focus! It would take an image of literally everything it pointed at, and they could be manipulated later to make all the nice settings we photogs now claim as our domain. When (and if) that happens, what would be left for human photographers to do, except work the mouse and keyboard? www.dpreview.com/news/0511/05112206refocuscamera.asp |
|
|
|
Post by Rachel on Dec 7, 2005 15:08:08 GMT -5
Ron, I imagine that eventually humans would not be needed at all. We will be redundant  |
|
PeterW
Lifetime Member
Member has Passed
Posts: 3,804
|
Post by PeterW on Dec 7, 2005 16:02:12 GMT -5
Don't know, Ron but it was, I think, in 1839 or 1840 that Paul Delaroche, one of the foremost painters of his time, first saw a Daugerrotype and is reputed to have declared "From this day on painting is dead".
Well, that was 165 years ago, and painting's taking an awful long time a-dying. Somehow the human factor seems to keep intruding.
Peter
|
|
|
|
Post by herron on Dec 7, 2005 23:54:52 GMT -5
I imagine that eventually humans would not be needed at all. We will be redundant Then I guess my new theme will be long live redundancy!  ...and Peter, I seem to recall some "respected scholar" getting a lot of press several years ago by claiming that there is no more history...all that humans will do has been done...and a significant lot of other rubbish. Sold the book he had written, I suppose...and let him retire in the manner in which he wanted to become accustomed! LOL ;D So, I suspect you're right. I won't be sending any sympathy cards for painters (or photographers) just yet.  |
|
PeterW
Lifetime Member
Member has Passed
Posts: 3,804
|
Post by PeterW on Dec 8, 2005 6:18:08 GMT -5
Ron, What a splendid phrase: 'significant rubbish' . Peter |
|
|
|
Post by Randy on Dec 8, 2005 7:25:51 GMT -5
I have a satillite dish, (DIRECTV) and I watched American Shopping Network last night. They had a show called 'CAMERAS' that was on for two hours. Surprise...there wasn't one film camera on it. There were reps from PENTAX and KODAK on the show also. Kodak can hardly lament the fall in film use when they don't even promote the product's use can they?...unless it's intentional?
|
|
|
|
Post by herron on Dec 8, 2005 17:15:36 GMT -5
What a splendid phrase: 'significant rubbish' . Thanks...I've read or listened to quite a lot of it in life so far! |
|
|
|
Post by herron on Dec 8, 2005 17:21:38 GMT -5
Just recalled another article I read recently...I'll have to go hunting for it to reacquaint myself with the details...I think it was Popular Science, or a magazine like that, with an article about a physicist who constructed a home-made camera capable of gathering gigapixels (billions of pixels) of information...lead-in showed a picture it had taken of the Grand Canyon...a huge section of it...with a call-out blown up, literally showing a few folks standing on one far rim of the canyon........might be interesting reading, if I can find it again....!  |
|
|
|
Post by heath on Dec 12, 2005 1:50:44 GMT -5
Hey Ron, I read about that on the net. ***Quickly searches on Google.....***** Here is the site: www.gigapxl.org/. There are some LARGE images on that site so if you have dialup, be warned. Heath |
|
|
|
Post by herron on Dec 12, 2005 9:38:34 GMT -5
Here is the site: www.gigapxl.org/. There are some LARGE images on that site so if you have dialup, be warned. That's it! The Pop Sci article is the one I read...had not seen the others, so thanks for the links! ;D |
|
