Is "traditional" landscape photography as we knew it, about to be obsolete?
Let's have a look here
Renders have, and are, moving the position of architecture photography, and it seems that this tendency brings more general questions about photography's place in image creation. The camera as a tool in the form that we know, seems to be floating in a medium depth. In fact, digital cameras have just adapted a new technology to an old design that was not made for it. Too much conservatism may cost a high price to the industry. Why? Because we will see soon or later better tools to achieve photographic images
I read in an old post that Michael was ready to eat his hat if Red cameras would not bring soon all a revolution in image industry. He may be true, but I see about the same problem:
what is the main subject on and on since digital photography appears? Resolution, pixels, IQ unsatisfaction, Bayer, compromised, etc... it is all about how bad it is and not so much how good it is.
Soon, and probably sooner than photo industry will have the time to react, dedicated software applications will be able to achieve every photographic image a creator could think about, with a precision, realism and flexibility that simply does not exist (or is too costly) with current photographic tools. And with no resolution limitation, non sense Bayer artifacts, horrible noise polution and so on...
Maybe the traditional photographer will end as a nostalgic collector, a sort of artist image maker of pre-historic times, let's say in 15 years? It is hard to divine what will happen, but it seems that the revolution is not likely to come from the photographic or cinematographic industry but from kids how are currently programing in their garage. Unless they stop thinking that adapting digital to old designs is enough.
By that, we'll have all the time to wonder about pixels problems, post production brain-teasers, and printings insecure color profiles at scandalous costs per month.
Do you think it is the end of photography as we know it?