Decline of PP efforts overall

[KeithVH]

Interesting article here. While I take the assumptions with a REALLY BIG grain of salt, the writer does raise some interesting points. Especially the masses vs the hobbyist/pro and how much time is spent or wasted on things that could be automated.

I don't think I'll ever want to give up the control I have but I can see where some might really want these future tools. Then again, I could extrapolate the logic to build the functionality of shot manipulation right into the camera itself. Then all you do is walk around pointing the lens at things. When all the conditions are right the AI initiates the shot. THAT is a scary thought.

 

[ddbowdoin]

Interesting article here. While I take the assumptions with a REALLY BIG grain of salt, the writer does raise some interesting points. Especially the masses vs the hobbyist/pro and how much time is spent or wasted on things that could be automated.

I don't think I'll ever want to give up the control I have but I can see where some might really want these future tools. Then again, I could extrapolate the logic to build the functionality of shot manipulation right into the camera itself. Then all you do is walk around pointing the lens at things. When all the conditions are right the AI initiates the shot. THAT is a scary thought.

It's not really a new discussion, just a different flavor.

Perspective and goals matter... if you're a pro making money (ie editorial, commercial, etc) this may threaten you.

Luckily (for me) much of the fine art world is still using film and it's only becoming stronger and stronger.

There is power in permanence and a tangible artifact of time, a negative. It exists. It isn't an interpretation of light in code.

 

[BoarderPhreak]

LOL. No. A bag of filters and some AI is not going to replace Photoshop. Maybe it will for the Instacrap crowd, but not working pros.

 

[KeithVH]

LOL. No. A bag of filters and some AI is not going to replace Photoshop. Maybe it will for the Instacrap crowd, but not working pros.

Interesting. Don't take this as argumentative but just curious. Does this mean that today's pros turn out better work because they have access to better/different tools? I'm trying to figure how I quantify "better work" but I'm just gonna through it out there for now.

FWIW - I'm still trying to wrap my head around Canon's new claim of a 40% decline in sales by next year.

 

[BoarderPhreak]

Interesting. Don't take this as argumentative but just curious. Does this mean that today's pros turn out better work because they have access to better/different tools? I'm trying to figure how I quantify "better work" but I'm just gonna through it out there for now.

FWIW - I'm still trying to wrap my head around Canon's new claim of a 40% decline in sales by next year.

"Pros" tend to use Photoshop for its ultimate control. Whether it's photos, illustration, fine art and photos, restoration, etc. Photographers, generally, have simpler needs; rotate/straighten a photo, dust spotting, tweaking image parameters. A lot prefer something like Lightroom which also adds in media management/cataloging, metadata, etc. Newer filters and tools on the market make certain tasks easier and faster (correcting red eye, haze, skin smoothing, sky replacement, yada yada). They won't replace the need for Photoshop for "pros" but make life easier for people that prefer to use programs like Lightroom and have a quicker, simpler and easily automated workflow.

As for Canon, it goes for Nikon too - the DSLR is essentially dead. Mirrorless has taken over the market and is the way of the future. Canikon were slow to embrace the change and are way behind the likes of Sony and Fujifilm who both have more advanced systems and greater market share. Whether or not Canikon can catch up and actually compete remains to be seen - but both are trying hard.

 

[ddbowdoin]

The other issue is distinguishing between “pros”.... the needs of Joe the Wedding Photography and someone running a major fine art production like Gregory Crewdson is vastly different.

 

[KeithVH]

Yeah, I try to be a bit more of a purist myself. One of my goals is to make the shot the best it can be and rely in a limited way on PP. Then again, my skills in Photoshp are only meh and I feel more comfortable in a darkroom anyway. I just wish everyone else would keep their sill hands off the saturation and contrast sliders. Not every shot needs to be psychedelic HDR. The world doesn't look like that.

 

[BoarderPhreak]

Yeah, I try to be a bit more of a purist myself. One of my goals is to make the shot the best it can be and rely in a limited way on PP. Then again, my skills in Photoshp are only meh and I feel more comfortable in a darkroom anyway. I just wish everyone else would keep their sill hands off the saturation and contrast sliders. Not every shot needs to be psychedelic HDR. The world doesn't look like that.

Yeah, for sure. HDR often makes me cringe. Mainly because it's overused and/or overdone. It's useful in the right situations, like wrangling extremes of dynamic range. But when I see HDR halos, I'm out. I too prefer a more "purist" approach. A little straightening, some spotting here and there, perhaps a little geometry tweaking. Naturally a light touch on highlights and shadows.

As for saturation and contrast, that's a more... Personal thing. Some like hyper saturated photos, and they play well on modern LCD screens (especially the shiny Apple ones that everybody has these days). I admit, I've grown to like this look - within reason. Back in the day, we went with more a more muted look. Some prefer the look still; consider Fujifilm's Chrome simulation. Me? I lean towards Velvia.

 

[thomas998]

Interesting article here. While I take the assumptions with a REALLY BIG grain of salt, the writer does raise some interesting points. Especially the masses vs the hobbyist/pro and how much time is spent or wasted on things that could be automated.

I don't think I'll ever want to give up the control I have but I can see where some might really want these future tools. Then again, I could extrapolate the logic to build the functionality of shot manipulation right into the camera itself. Then all you do is walk around pointing the lens at things. When all the conditions are right the AI initiates the shot. THAT is a scary thought.

Photoshop and similar high end software isn't going to vanish. The number of people that use the lite versions will certainly decline just as the number of people that buy point and shoot cameras has dropped as people just assume their phones can do just a good of a job. So it will certainly hit the bottom line of the makers of the editing software. Maybe a few of the companies will leave the market, but most will just cut down on the speed at which they churn out new versions of the software and jack up the prices of the software to make up for the decline of the market size. Frankly I don't think I'll really care either way as my personal favorite software for photo editing pretty much topped out a version or 2 ago and while I upgraded to the latest I actually ended up going back to the older version simply because I didn't need the changes they made or particularly like the tweaked interface. I'm satisfied with the software I have today and can't think of anything I need changed.