There's a new camera system in development that will drastically change the field of photography. A new system in development by Lytro allows a picture's point of focus changed after the photo is taken - meaning photos ruined by being out of focus could be a thing of the past. Check out this article for more info. - Lytro Camera System
You can actually see some tech demos here, and it's actually really crazy - Demo
What do you guys think about this new system. Kind of takes all the hard work out of photography. I personally like the challenges, so this wouldn't be for me.... but what about you?
Haha, One day I'm sure the camera will do its own traveling and work while we sit around the house.
This camera seems to be aimed at casual users. And if you take a look at the sample photograph the quality is no where near the level of modern DSLRs. It may have a nice trick but nothing more than that.
There may be something to it, but it reminds me of the hype around that device that was going to revolutionize the way we travel. There are a few Segways around but they can only be used on private property and don't seem very practical for a trip to the cottage with the kids and luggage.
Capturing light traveling in every direction sounds like a challenge, perhaps that was only the copy writer's idea. They don't even show a prototype, do they? Even today, you can take a picture of a room full of people with the lens stopped down, then use Photoshop to add selective blur.
The video of the lens that takes photos while not attached to the camera is more compelling but also fairly bizarre. They may have something, or it may just be a lot of hype.
For casual photographers, or young photographers just starting out yeah it is ok I guess. But if you truly love photography and you want to call your self a professional, then you will learn and try to do things the traditional way eventually.
I now shoot with a Canon Rebel T2i, after upgrading from the Samsung S1060 (point and shoot with basic manual funciton. With the exception of using auto white balance in most situations since it is most suited, I make sure that all of my shots are done through manual control, with no need to render or edit afterwards, with the exception of cropping (which is rare).
(If I don't like the shot then I simply take it again, Each time in doing so improving my skills in mastering the use of manual control shots that have amazing detail and effects as well as the ability to recognize what I did right or wrong)
This new technology seems interesting, but may give rise to a generation of lazy and cocky (camera-people) who take pride in their art work on a (professional photographer's level) even though they did little to get the right shot in the beginning knowing that they can just fix it later.
(something that I don't consider cool once over the age of 14 or after you have had a manual shooting capable camera for 2 years/Long enough to learn how to start shooting in manual)
It's already happening and established photographers are starting to feel the pressure in some cases, Because people (small businesses) are turning to average joe from next door for a photo shoot since the initial shots don't have to be the best and can just be edited later. This is because most businesses that need shots only care about the end result, not the care or art in the process used to get the perfect shot without any need of any corrections. (Plus average joes are a lot cheaper to pay that professionals.)
For starters it's fine, but for those who love photography and want to go professional and start their own business. Problem!!! instead of profession vs. profession, it is now professional vs.profession vs. careless dude with a souped up point and shoot with on board editing software.
In the end it all depends on how far they advance the technology.
As people we want faster and better for little money. There was a time when man wanted fire, he got it and with time he turned in to a cell phone where you can cook the tumor in your head. Now a days it's the want that drives people and not the need. I shoot in manual because I took the time to learn, now a days learning takes too long and getting to the end is what we want (save money). My first picture was a blury one but in my failure I learn and I am willing to take that time. Heck even some photographers fear using photoshop because of the learning curve. "Make Money Now!" is the place where we live. I think we shouldn't worry too much because mindless point and shooters won't be able to explain what make a good shot when asked and the 'True photographers' will just get faster.
I am one of those photographers who doesn't like touching Photoshop too often now a days (especially when it comes to my photos) partly because I feel that I would become lazy to when using that program to fix photos, and partly for the amount of time that it would take to re-learn using the program, plus learning the stuff that I never knew would just be a bit time consuming, and for me that is time that I could be using to get out on the city to learn to get more and more manual shots in a crisp, clean, artistic format.
The thing is that I have improved in my shooting skill so much, so quickly, and have shot as much as I could in the city (that doesn't involve invading in people's space) so often that despite my love for photography I find my self wanting to do something different. and thus when I'm not being challenged by my sister to do tricky stuff with the camera to test me and to make me test my self, I try to spend more time working on the business and networking end of things, at least until I can get models (friends) that I can start shooting.
The irony is that in order for me to do things like design my business cards so I can network with people, and show that I have a bit of professionalism which would help me start a business, I would have to stop being impatient and re-learn to use a program know as............... Photoshop.
My point is that if you try to be lazy to get around certain things, you will still feel the burn, and have to go back later to do what you neglected if you truly are serious about making some head way.
The "make money now" mentality can sometimes cause you to "lose money unexpectedly" so it is better to just learn what you have to learn and enjoy the ride once you truly get rolling.
I see it as very gimmicky... and don't entirely "get" the point of it. As someone else said, you could simply shoot with a small aperture on a regular camera, and then selective blur the photo later. More difficult, for sure, to do the required masking, but it can be done with todays technology.
Having said that, I've got no problem with it. If it works, if people enjoy using it, if they produce visually appealing results with it, then more power to them!
For a long time i was against the idea of digital photography, i wanted to stick with film, as I saw digital as an "easy way out", removing the craft from photography. Boy was I wrong about that!
This is no different. Sure you can alter your focal point after the fact... but a poorly composed shot will still be a poorly composed shot. A poorly lit/exposed shot will still be a poorly lit/exposed shot.
I'm sure there are photographers out there who would turn their nose up at the fact that my flash uses e-ttl technology, and I rarely have to worry about my flash exposure because of it. Technology changes, and more 'automated' capabilities are always becoming available. That just means there is more choice as to how to do what we all love to do.
The more options there are for photographers (from wet behind the ears beginners, to old pros), the better. And the more accessible photography is, the better.
Yeah sounds good, but it still does not make you a good photographer, yes the image would be clearer but you still have to come up with a creative look that sets you apart from other photographers.