Of course using CDs is about like discussing the federal budget in pennies. I was talking to a friend who moved back to Japan. I used Google Earth to actually figure our where her apartment was and used street view to wander around. The resolution has improved by a huge amount in just the last few years. I could look at the produce and check the prices. I wonder what it will be like in 10 years? When Street View first started it seemed like 320x240 resolution.
I was being sarcastic. 
you can already buy professional photographs of the sights at the Rio airport. For a certain group of people, that’s enough.
What this thread is about is not the masses of Facebook sorority party shots, it’s about the person that know the rule of thirds, what an f.stop is, what ISO used to mean.
That kind of experimentation is being brought to a much larger potential audience…most folks won’t take the camera off ‘Auto’, but some will, and that 150 cheapo will take some amazing stuff...and photoshop it in- camera. I know my shutter rate went up exponentially when it stopped costing .40 an exposure.
We don’t need no stinking 22nd century technology. You go out there and make a good picture of what you have: This picture was my desktop background for a long time (27" screen), I took it in a very unglamorous location, our sidewalk.
It is one of my favorite nature pictures, and I just had to step outside (Flickr does a lousy job at downsizing, it is very sharp). Of course my photographer friend who went on a safari last year has pictures than are 100 times more awesome than this, but you can make good, even great pictures of what you have.
But we already have that. It’s called reality.
If somebody sucks enough not to get good pictures of Reality, how will they know how to get good pictures of Fake Reality?
My output of quality pictures has gone up since I went back to film, actually. For the past few months I’ve used my Bronica SQ and Nikon N90 far more than my D70. When every roll of Velvia or Ektar costs me five dollars (plus developing costs), it gives me much more of an incentive to take my time and frame every shot very precisely. I’ll often eye a potential shot for 15 to 20 minutes before pushing the shutter. (This is in the case of landscapes or still subjects.) And even with people, I take as much time as I can to get the right shots…as much time as can be taken before they get impatient.
There’s no way to review your just-taken shots with a film camera, so there’s none of the delete/retake/delete/retake etc bullshit. Also a plus, for me.
Whatever works best for you. There’s no right way to shoot. I happen to be a prolific shooter whether film or digital. I think about my shots, but I’m not going to curse if I have to go through twenty rolls of film to get the one shot I’m looking for. Film is the cheap part.
That was my point (both of em).
Some people seem to think that everything is going to be so photographed and put on the net and merged/spliced/whatevered that you won’t even need to take pics in the real world anymore. Yes, that may not too far into the future be doable if you dig up a snap shot of view of some standard tourist spot that looks pretty good, photoshop yourself in nicely and taaa daaa, here is the family standing in front of the Pyramids where we went on vacation last summer.
But there is buttload of reality out there. And its quite the task to image it all to a very high level. Therefore, good photographers actually out there in reality finding that perfect shot are going to be around for awhile.
I’ve dabbled in photography for about 25 years, and have come to anticipate (with some dread) the “What camera did you use?” question from someone who admires a photo of mine…makes me always want to ask them if they’re in the habit of questioning the host of a dinner they enjoyed about what make and model of pot they used.
Here is a how to on doing fashion photography with an iPhone.
Of course, he has really good lights. And THAT is what you really need.
Oh and I liked the photo of the kid in the gokart zooming away. It’s his birthday, he is getting older and farther away. It’s very poetic. (doesn’t have great lighting though)
Then we are in complete agreement.
If we get to the point where we have scanned reality then making good pictures will be require the same talent as it does now to make good pictures of reality.
Oh, the dreaded “you camera takes such nice pictures!” that makes me want to inflict blunt force trauma on people, but don’t cause my camera is more valuable than their skulls.
Start shooting with a Nikon F or an F2. Those tanks are more solid than their skulls.
Bahhh…use a Nikonis IV…and there is some sorta Iphone/trailer park joke lurking in here somewhere.
I don’t mind it when people say that to me. I take the opportunity to explain to them the things about my camera that make it possible for me to take professional photos: namely, the control over the aperture (something that people used to point-and-shoots know nothing about), and hence control over the depth of field; also, for indoor shots, the use of an external flash, pointed upwards or at an angle rather than straight forward (the number-one thing that makes indoor photos look professional instead of amateur.) Now, I always make it clear that any basic camera with manual controls and a flash shoe is capable of doing this. In the case of 6x6 photos, I explain why the larger negative gives you much sharper and higher resolution, and why slide film gives you such amazing color - but I always tell them that a few hundred dollars less than the price of a new DSLR will let them do the very same thing.
Indeed - I’ve also heard of professional photographers deliberately forcing themselves to use extremely basic equipment, as an exercise in developing their eye.
Yes, that’s always a fun exercise to shake things up. Go out with one body and one fixed focal length lens, and see what you can come up with. Here’s a website dedicated to that idea (with the additional constraint of one roll of film, too.)
I have to admit I shook my head at this:
Dude, if I’m shooting CN film I should be allowed to color balance my scan. Unless you think that the automatic color balancing of the scanning software somehow is the “genuine colors” of the film, that is :rolleyes:
That must be an oversight. I can’t see anybody having an issue with color correcting film.
Of course, if you don’t want to use normal studio lights, you can just use iPads. 
I’ve always said that if you can’t take good pictures in your own backyard you’ve got no right calling yourself a photographer.
This web site gives you an idea of how in the future photographs will be constructed using 100s or even thousands of different images.
http://photosynth.net/default.aspx
Most of the examples are panoramas, but there are some walk arounds. The panoramas because many cameras have a sweep panorama mode. Soon the intelligence to do walkarounds will be embedded in the camera and it will take the pictures automatically and stitch them together.