Photographers, You're Being Replaced By Software

Mrs. Grundy writes "CGI software, even open-source software like Blender, continues to improve in quality, speed and ease-of-use. Photographer Mark Meyer wonders how long it will be before large segments of the photography industry are replaced by software and become the latest casualty to fall to outsourcing. Some imagery once the domain of photographers has already moved to CGI. Is any segment of the photography market safe? Will we soon accept digital renderings in places where we used to expect photographs?"

Comments

CGI wishes

[crazyjj]

CGI has a LONG way to go before it can replace a good photograph. A well-composed, well-lit photograph can say more than most 3D animations ever could. And a photo is a lot easier and cheaper to produce. Who is going to pay a team of digital artists $100 an hour to create a 3D model of something when you can just tell Jimmy Olsen to go take a picture of it for a pittance?

The software to do 3D may be getting easier and cheaper. But good 3D artists aren't. And a single picture of a wounded, crying girl in Syria will always have a helluva lot more power than any 3D rendering of the deployment of Syrian forces. Photography isn't going all-CGI any more than movies are.

Re:CGI wishes

[rubycodez]

romantic bullshit, CGI replacement of photography and motion pictures is already happening. You think a person with artistic talent in 3rd world who will work for 1/100 the rate of your "pros" has less talent? The ever more powerful cheap computer will level that field fast and soon.

Re:CGI wishes

[idontgno]

Who is going to pay a team of digital artists $100 an hour to create a 3D model of something when you can just tell Jimmy Olsen to go take a picture of it for a pittance?

Someone who wants a "picture" for evidence of an event which never actually happened. If the synthesized image is good enough, it will gain all the credibility that apparently-untouched photographs have. If the viewer can't tell it's 'shopped, it would take remarkable skepticism or some inherent distrust of whomever's presenting the image to disbelieve it.

Re:CGI wishes

[SoupGuru]

Photography as art is going nowhere soon. Same with photojournalism, most likely.

Commercial photography is what's going to be replaced.

Re:CGI wishes

[rufty_tufty]

Were painters redundant when photography was invented?
Yes, many of the portrait painters were. But those skills of composing a shot, working with people were still needed. New opportunities were created, the photography + painting business ended up as being bigger than what had been the painting business alone.

Things change; this is good.

Re:CGI wishes

[squidflakes]

Real pictures look trashy on eBay because real professional photographers aren't taking them. Getting rid of glare and getting the proper depth of field are beginner level, and most people don't even have that. A good light box can be home built for a few dollars. Most of the really good depth of field comes from a large format camera with motions, and while the digital ones are expensive they can be rented for cheap.

Still, you're right in that a lot of component pictures are CGI, but it isn't because competent photographers can't get the shots, its because someone decided it was cheaper.

Re:CGI wishes

[plover]

The balance point comes when the cost of creating and rendering the model to an adequate degree equals the cost of photographing reality.

So for things you're going to reuse in a lot of scenes, such as a car that turns into a giant robot, yeah, the 3D model is way cheaper. For a revolting uncanny-valley version of Tom Hanks on a steam train in a blizzard, 3D is cheaper (but not better.) For a one-off modeling job to create a beautiful person using a product for an advertisement, the effort required to create the model and environment still takes a lot of human work to make it happen. Not that it doesn't take hours of makeup and lighting and staging to photograph the beautiful person and the product, just that the balance is still on the side of the photographer.

Are you imagining a future where an advertising agency has thousands of pre-rendered models they can toss into an environment, slap a couple of boxes of product images onto the virtual tabletop, and click "print"? They do some of that today. But a lot of them have to be careful that they aren't misrepresenting the products. You can show a virtual package under a virtual christmas tree making a virtual kid virtually happy. But you can't show 3D rendered oranges and say "look how perfect our oranges are!" The FTC does have regulatory authority there, and will investigate misleading imagery in advertising.

The thing about 3D modeling (or even 2D art, such as painting), is that a good rendering takes a tremendous amount of talent. I'm not talking about abstract art, or crayon-outlined cartoons, but creating photorealistic imagery takes a trained eye, requiring roughly the same skills as the photographer. A computer can do some of the work, such as making sure the model's foot is touching the floor, but it can't yet give you a sense of balance. That only comes as input from the human operator.

Re:CGI wishes

[kubernet3s]

The reason photographs are authoritative is because we believe that the only way to secure a photograph is to actually snap a camera in front of the event. If photorealistic images can be generated without this, then why should we lend photographs any credibility? Already, people's reaction to photographs showing things they don't want to be true is "that's totally photoshopped." Photography's saving grace has always been that it is fairly easy to tell the real from the fake for all but the highest quality forgeries, and then an expert can usually uncover it. Once people simply "don't know" if a picture is true, then the age of the photograph as a means of record will be dead. They will carry all the journalistic weight of engravings or portraits.

However, as the parent suggests, if something DOES happen, and you desire a record of it, it will be cheaper to secure that record by photographing it, rather than rendering it.

Re:CGI wishes

[ScentCone]

The U.S. should outlaw the use of photoshop by corporations in advertising and reporting.

What about businesses that aren't incorporated? Should a dog groomer who uses a photo of the front of her house as part of her promotional web site be allowed to 'shop out the overhead power lines that distract the eye from the otherwise pleasant, relaxing scene? Yes? Great. How about next year, when her accountant convinces her that it will make more sense for her to incorporate her business. Will she have to put the power lines back in, now that the photograph is being used by an Eeeeevil Corporation in its ads?

How about the four college buddies who get together in an Eeeeeevil Corporation and form a landscaping company? Should they be allowed to show a photograph of one of the yards they maintain, but use Photoshop to clone out the pile of dog crap they didn't notice when they took the photo? So, if you're free-lancing by yourself as a landscaper, that would be fine, but an Eeeeevil Corporation of four college guys would be more evil by doing so? Or is it still OK with you, if it's four guys? How about when they join up with 40 other guys, to do more work? Is cloning out the dog crap or the piece of trash in the photo only evil depending on how many people are communicating when they do it? Really?

I suppose you're also opposed to Eeeeeevil Corporations using wide angle lenses, or special lighting, or make up artists? And photographs used by businesses should only be allowed if the photographer never crouches down to improve the perspective distortion, or to favor the light on a foreground object? Only Eeeeevil Corporations would do something like that. Honest, innocent individual humans would never resort to favoring the subjects they photograph through the use of skills and experience and good tools.

And, of course, it's safe to say that you would completely criminalize the use of watercolor paintings, sketches or any other bit of whimsy that lends itself to artistic license and illustrative techniques meant to emphasize, visually, some particular part of a message. Right? I mean, if people start using artists' renderings in ads, it's probably the end of civilization, right?

Think about this for a minute, OK? Yeeesh.

Re:CGI wishes

[Opportunist]

Actually, I think painting is far more "threatened" by CGI than photography.

Before photography, painting was both, an art form AND a way to recreate reality. Photography took over that second part. And not only because it is more reliable.

CGI can do that first part, though. And CGI offers a few effects that are hard to recreate in painting, especially when it comes to animation.

Re:CGI wishes

[cayenne8]

Really? All the data I've seen indicate that average people keep getting smarter.

Obviously you've never worked a job where you were facing the general public.

If you had, well....you start to realize how stupid the general public is, and wonder how they managed to not drown looking up at a rainstorm with their mouths open.

I hate to say it...it really comes off as an elitist attitude, but man...if you're ever worked retail, or food service, you just see things that amaze you....and are not isolated incidents.

After years of working retail and food service decades ago when in school...I came to the frank conclusion that likely 80% of the general population is fucked in the head and stupid.

I sadly, think..it has likely gotten worse in the years since I had to face and deal with them....

Re:CGI wishes

[geekoid]

In the name of accuracy.
They should have a clear notice saying it's been artificially generated.

Re:CGI wishes

[drkim]

Average I.Q.s can't get 'higher' -- The mean I.Q. (for any given age group) is always 100 points by definition. In a population of 'Einsteins' the average (mean) I.Q. would still be 100.

Re:Hell yeah!

[scubamage]

I wish in that case it isn't like Up. Most heartbreakingly beautiful 7 minutes ever rendered.

Re:Not outsourcing

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to be semantic, but this is not outsourcing. Outsourcing would suggest that they'd hire a photographer overseas to do the job at a lower rate. This is elimination of the job by technological advance (not sure if there is a buzzword synonym or not).

Sorry, you are referring to "offshoring" not "outsourcing." You can domestically outsource something. Outsource does not equal moving functions to another country.

Once the data is there, yes

[russellh]

A photograph requires a subject - similarly, a cgi render requires scene data. If you have the scene data, such as a product model, or a mountain, then you can take a virtual photograph by setting the lighting, framing the scene, etc.

So let's say I want an image looking up a tall skycraper from the ground. I could go out, find a location, wait for the right weather and lighting conditions and take my traditional photograph. Or, if I happen to be able to find a skyscraper model, I could easily compose the exact scene I want in my computer. Faster, probably. And maybe with Google's or someone else's increasingly accurate data, it could be an actual skyscraper and not just some stock model. So yeah, this will replace a lot of traditional photography, without a doubt.

But art is always up to the artist.

Copyrighted landmarks

[Picass0]

Chalk another one for the lawyers.

One advantage of CG is the elimination of concern over buildings and landmarks that must be licensed to appear in film or advertising. Movies and TV shows filming in NYC (especially Times Square) commonly replace buildings and advertising with computer images to avoid licensing and copyright concerns. It can be expesive when something falls between the cracks. An example - The movie poster for Spiderman featured a reflection of the Chrystler Building in Spidey's lens. The owners of the Chrystler Building sued and the poster was recalled, reprinted with a photoshoped image, and redistributed.

When starting from scratch with a full CG image all parties involved can be sure there will be no such FUBARs. Advertisers want eye popping images. Most are pretty flexible about the source.

Re:Copyrighted landmarks

[k6mfw]

Excellent mention, which is too bad because "landmarks" can also be free advertising, but lawyers seem to make a stink about everything.

Already being done

[lordmetroid]

Already being done, I know from friends of mine who work in IKEA PR-department that they have been constructing scenes in 3D modelling software instead of photographing for at least 3 years already.