Are we the new troglodytes?

[JBW]

Read the linked article. it's either an oh wow or an oh darn

[NorthernFocus]

Portrait photographers may be going the way of the dodo. Work with long glass still seems to be safe from obsolescence.

[xpatUSA]

Portrait photographers may be going the way of the dodo. Work with long glass still seems to be safe from obsolescence.

In another forum that I infest, camera comparisons are quite popular and never-ending.

I get taken to task there quite often because, as a cave-dweller, I prefer to compare raw sensor data as opposed to - for example - images fully converted with different converters and god-knows-what defaults, equally framed d'accord, and re-sampled to some common output size like an 8x10 (or A4) print. Most folks there do seem to prefer the latter which brings out the point of the OP. That is to say, if comparisons are made between systems rather than just the camera raw data, then the software "performance" pretty much rules.

My first encounter with that sort of thing was discovering automatic lens correction in my Panasonic G1.

[DanK]

It seems new only in degree.

There are two separate issues in the post: the increasing power of software to modify images, and the inclusion of more of that capability in phones' firmware--as the article says:

It used to be that those post-processing tricks put the emphasis on post.

I find none of the latter particularly relevant for my own work; I want to do it in post to have control. However, it will certainly expand the range of things people who don't want to do postprocessing can do, and it may lead more people to say 'whatever the phone's engineers have decided is good enough for me.'

[Manfred M]

If we really look at what these processing tricks do, they emulate what photographers with larger format cameras have been doing for many years; shallow DoF. bokeh, etc. I don't think how they are created is all that important, but rather how these techniques are used and how good the automation is.

When I look at my camera, it can do panos, HDRI, etc. but the techniques have limitations as the results give the user not control and the camera make all the creative decisions for the photographer. I have tried these techniques, but am enough of a techie to want my own "look" to the image and that is not something I can get with a preset.

I think the bottom line is that even with all this technology, it will still require a skill user to do the most important aspect of photography; composing and framing the shot. All the technology in the world is not going to take a poorly thought out image and turn it into a masterpiece.

[pendennis]

We know that computer algorithms are life savers, especially in post-photo editing. The algorithms in the smart phones are attempting (with whatever success, or lack thereof) to bring artistry to the shot without the editing process. That's a two-edged sword. Yes, you can get a "portrait quality" (subjective) image from your smart phone. Downside, can you get "back home" to the original untampered with image?

The purpose of editing has always been to fix whatever flaws you may have created with the original image, whether on film, or on disc. Alternatively, you can use the editing process to expand the range of film's/disc's latitudes. Even with controlled studio conditions, there can be some under/over exposed areas that can be fixed with editing. And there are also the other artistic touches that we can add.

I've always liked the idea that I can start over if I didn't like the results in the darkroom, or "Adobe".

What we, as portraitists do, is to create an image pleasing to the client, as well as artistically pleasing to our own eyes.

I've worked with many negatives that weren't quite right, and made a better image in the darkroom. Since I've gone digital, I've also scanned negatives and transparencies and yielded far superior work, more to that which I originally envisioned, than I ever got when I lived with internegs, and long discussions with lab technicians.

As Manfred so well pointed out, the GI-GO concept is still alive.

I'm not underestimating the penetration of the technology changes, but I think there's room for it all. As an example, film has had its obituary written a number of times since the late 1990's I still shoot film, and will until everyone stops making it.

In this image that was originally shot on Kodacolor Gold, using an RB67, about 25 years ago, I had a print made at a local custom shop. Even as I specified what I wanted, the final image was exactly as I had seen the sunrise, and although I got a lot of compliments on the scene. It was just never exactly as I originally saw it. Even though the image was on Kodacolor Gold with its generous latitude, the printing was never to my satisfaction. Earlier this year, I scanned the original negative, took it to Adobe, and the finished product is exactly what I envisioned years ago.