The Future of Photography?

[Steve Kefford]

This digital technique is not really anything new and can have some good results. A problem with multiple exposures is with transient light, which is usually the best type.

One variation on the technique, is to shoot one raw omage, and make two (or more) raw conversions at different exposures, and then combine them. This obviously only helps with exposure and not focus, but solves the above problem.

It is one of the advantages of digital, but not really that significant.

Steve

[Steve Kefford]

I'm reminded of the younger generation.....

31 - younger generation? To some that is almost pension age.

Steve

[jetcode]

The future of photography seems to be tightly tied to manipulation. I guess that is life. Not surprising really when you think about it - there are now photographers working who have never used film or known life without a computer.

is using a red #25 to turn the sky black not a form of manipulation? or using super saturated color film not manipulation?

[John Kasaian]

is using a red #25 to turn the sky black not a form of manipulation?

I use filters to record things which, without filtering would be diminished or lost entirely in the negative. I rarely use strong filtration but that is one way to record the contrast between clouds and the sky---if indeed there was that much contrast when taking the shot. I prefer using filters to "preserve" not to "add." This is one of the parameters I impose on myself to preserve fidelity.

[roteague]

31 - younger generation? To some that is almost pension age.

Steve

31 isn't, I'm only 52. Kirk's comment made me think about all the things teenagers have this day, that they take for granted; things that were science fiction to those of us a bit older.

is using a red #25 to turn the sky black not a form of manipulation? or using super saturated color film not manipulation?

What is a red filter #25? Not something I use. As for the "super saturated" color film - I hate to break it to you, but I see colors as brilliant and saturated. These films are the only ones that match how "I" see color. That isn't manipulation, that is using a film that matches the way I see color.

[Don Wallace]

In my opinion, there is no doubt that digital technology will all but replace current photography. Some silver-based photography will remain as a form of artistic expression, but the digital process is not simply "another tool in the photographer's kit." It is a process that is embedded in a growing industrial infrastructure that will engulf all others.

We all know that there has been a serious decline in widespread support for silver-based photography and this is only going to get worse. There will remain some manufacturers and suppliers who will service this small market and we should cultivate these.

I will continue to practise silver-based photography and have no interest whatsoever in digital capture. I do not like the digital workflow, not in photography, nor in any other artistic pursuit.

[paulr]

... and have no interest whatsoever in digital capture. I do not like the digital workflow, not in photography, nor in any other artistic pursuit.

just wait til they come out with version 2.0 or 3.0 of digital women.

[Struan Gray]

Focus stitching works best in macro photography or microscopy where you can move the sample through the plane of focus and thus keep the magnification constant. It is a standard feature on high-end optical microscopes these days. For real-world macroscopic imaging, the differing magnifications of foreground and background can lead to problems even if you leave the lens fixed in position and focus by moving the film plane. It's worst if you have a bright object or a light source in the immediate foreground or far background: it's out-of-focus image can swamp the light from dimmer objects at other distances. This is less of a problem for microscopes because of the high divergence of the light path: out of focus objects go dim fast, so much so that one popular algorithm for finding the most in-focus parts of the focus stack just looks for the part of the stack where a particular pixel is brightest.

[eddie]

one of my fellow camera club members began using "high dynamic imaging" ( i think it is called that) anyway he shoots panoramas and now 360 degree panos. some look interesting but most lack something. in one photo he cut off the buildings tops because he could not tilt the camera up or it would not stitch correctly.

for one 360 pano he shot 20 images, 5 brackets per shot for a total of 100 images. 2 gigs of memory. and then he spent 3 hours putting it together on the computer. now it looked okay, but i would have rather spent 3 hours shooting than PSing.

eddie

[Daniel_Buck]

one of my fellow camera club members began using "high dynamic imaging" ( i think it is called that) anyway he shoots panoramas and now 360 degree panos. some look interesting but most lack something. in one photo he cut off the buildings tops because he could not tilt the camera up or it would not stitch correctly.

for one 360 pano he shot 20 images, 5 brackets per shot for a total of 100 images. 2 gigs of memory. and then he spent 3 hours putting it together on the computer. now it looked okay, but i would have rather spent 3 hours shooting than PSing.

eddie

he couldn't tilt the camera up or it wouldn't stitch correctly? That doesn't make much sense. I stitch all the time (at work, and at home) and I never have any problems stitching. heck I can even stitch images taken with different lenses and different cameras.

But yes, just because an image is stitched or blended for more dynamic range, doesn't mean it's a good photo! :-)