Is the Professional Photographer becoming extinct

[MissionMan]

I think you are confusing wedding photographers with the best photographers, but since you mention them, let's look at wedding photos. Good wedding photos rely on the photographers interaction with the wedding party as much as it does technically good photography. Are you suggesting that a smartphone will interact with humans as well as a human? When they happens, who needs a spouse. Just marry your smartphone.

Computers have been able to beat the best chess players for 20 years already, but chess involves no judgement as to beauty. It is just numbers. Try to define the rule of thirds so it applies to any photograph. And then remember that a really good photographer will be able to look at the result and decide if it works or not. How is a computer going to do that? How do you define how the Mona Lisa works? People have been trying ever since it was painted.

Nope, I'm using that as an example. I'm suggesting a computer will be able to tell you what focal length is correct to achieve the right crop, whether the angle is wrong, whether you need to move or the angle needs to change, what aperture would be best and in 20 years it would be able to do that in a second or less, or far less time than it would take for a human to evaluate the same situation because a human doesn't have the capacity to compare the current frame to thousands (or potentially millions) of stock award winning photos. It would be able to produce the best photos by simple replicating what it takes to get the best photos and comparing a given situation to it's stock library of the best photos. And that excludes the idea that AI will occur, because if and when that occurs, computers will have the capacity to learn faster than a person can and that would mean that they could eclipse even the best photographers. So for a given situation, it may not produce something unique but it could produce something brilliant.

And by that stage, you could probably even get a robot of sorts to direct the people so you may not even need someone to tell you where to stand and how to stand. It would be able to understand in an instant whether everyone in the photo was sharp or whether there was movement by one person in a group shot. It could be able to take a photo far quicker and potentially avoid missing a photo because it wasn't quick enough with the shutter.

So yes, I am saying that in 20 years, we could be replaceable.

[Steve Axford]

Nope, I'm using that as an example. I'm suggesting a computer will be able to tell you what focal length is correct to achieve the right crop, whether the angle is wrong, whether you need to move or the angle needs to change, what aperture would be best and in 20 years it would be able to do that in a second or less, or far less time than it would take for a human to evaluate the same situation because a human doesn't have the capacity to compare the current frame to thousands (or potentially millions) of stock award winning photos. It would be able to produce the best photos by simple replicating what it takes to get the best photos and comparing a given situation to it's stock library of the best photos. And that excludes the idea that AI will occur, because if and when that occurs, computers will have the capacity to learn faster than a person can and that would mean that they could eclipse even the best photographers. So for a given situation, it may not produce something unique but it could produce something brilliant.

And by that stage, you could probably even get a robot of sorts to direct the people so you may not even need someone to tell you where to stand and how to stand. It would be able to understand in an instant whether everyone in the photo was sharp or whether there was movement by one person in a group shot. It could be able to take a photo far quicker and potentially avoid missing a photo because it wasn't quick enough with the shutter.

So yes, I am saying that in 20 years, we could be replaceable.

I think you miss the point that photography is a communication. It is a performance. The story really does mean something and computers don't write stories.
If you treat your photography as a purely mechanical thing where a computer could do it for you, then I suspect that you well never be a good photographer. I would love for the automatic aspects of a camera to improve. That way I could just focus on on the human aspects, but I suspect that even in 5 or 20 years time that there will still be technical things that we have to do. I don't work out the best settings on a camera because I love doing that bit. I do it because I have to. I usually spend far more time thinking about and finding the best time and place for the photograph I want, than I do working out the technicalities of the camera or other equipment. As soon as one thing becomes automatic then the photographers (or any other tool user) will move on to more complex things. We discover and then do new things. Computers don't. They just do what they were programmed to do. To do totally new things requires a computer that can rewire itself to become something new - like us. Perhaps biological computers will eventually be made, but to think that will happen in the next 20 years is just dreaming. We are far more complex than any of our electronic computers.
I can see that one day a computer loaded with a stock library of "good" photos being able to take endless copies of them. That may improve the quality of the average holiday snap, but will hardy replace even the good wedding photographer.

- - - Updated - - -

Promised apology? [What P Hanson often asks.]

Is that a comparison?

[MissionMan]

I think you miss the point that photography is a communication. It is a performance. The story really does mean something and computers don't write stories.
If you treat your photography as a purely mechanical thing where a computer could do it for you, then I suspect that you well never be a good photographer. I would love for the automatic aspects of a camera to improve. That way I could just focus on on the human aspects, but I suspect that even in 5 or 20 years time that there will still be technical things that we have to do. I don't work out the best settings on a camera because I love doing that bit. I do it because I have to. I usually spend far more time thinking about and finding the best time and place for the photograph I want, than I do working out the technicalities of the camera or other equipment. As soon as one thing becomes automatic then the photographers (or any other tool user) will move on to more complex things. We discover and then do new things. Computers don't. They just do what they were programmed to do. To do totally new things requires a computer that can rewire itself to become something new - like us. Perhaps biological computers will eventually be made, but to think that will happen in the next 20 years is just dreaming. We are far more complex than any of our electronic computers.
I can see that one day a computer loaded with a stock library of "good" photos being able to take endless copies of them. That may improve the quality of the average holiday snap, but will hardy replace even the good wedding photographer.

- - - Updated - - -



Is that a comparison?

Its not whether photography is art, its whether people perceive it as art. if I gave you a machine that would allow you to put a box on a persons head and have a machine cut someone's hair to perfection, anyone can become a hairdresser with the only skill required being know how to set the machine. Hairdressing is very much an art form like photography and could become just as redundant through such a device. The problem is that not everyone wants art. They just want a photo. They don't appreciate the art behind it.