找回密码
 我要注册
首 页   |   行摄风光   |   人物人像   |   人文纪实   |   生态微距   |   鸟类摄影   |    影赛园地 
新手图集    舞台摄影手机摄影摄友聊吧地区分站每日签到图片库                  
查看: 10482|回复: 75

转帖:摄影与真实:电脑是否会取代相机?

  [复制链接]
发表于 2012-5-31 14:34 | |阅读模式
2012-05-21 19:00   来源:摄影札记   作者:Nok     网友评论 27 条   进入论坛

以上这张照片,是100%“伪造”的,没有这样的摆设,没有这样的灯光,没有这样的背景,甚至根本所有镙丝都不存在,全部都是用电脑“制造”出来的。但如果欺骗说,这是某静物摄影师的摄影作品,恐怕没有人敢质疑。来自摄影师Mark Meyer一篇精彩分享:《摄影师,你正在被软件代替》(Photographers: You're Being Replaced by Software)。是的,今日摄影受到严峻的挑战与考验。
或者你会说:“电脑高手要伪造什么的都很容易,但普通人都情愿用相机吧。”其实作者只是用了一个相对方便简单、开源而且是免费的软件Blender来制作。那种只有皮克斯或迪士尼才可以造出维肖维妙影像的年代,已经悄悄褪去,电脑仿真技术平民化,是一件不可逆转、越来越急促成真的事实。
相机曾经是展现真实影像的最有效工具,快速、操作简单、弹性大,这个垄断在数码摄影发展这十年来是显而易见的。换句话说,你想认识一件事物的真实外表,例如某只蝴蝶的外貌,怎样做?二百年前是绘画,这个年代一定是拍照,又快,又方便。但好景不常,这个巿场正被CG(computer graphic)不断蚕食。
不需把iPhone掉进水里,甚至你根本不需要有iPhone,就可以轻易制作出以下图片:
例如你在杂志上看到一瓶香水的广告照片,大家早就知道当中动了很多后期手脚。但再过不久,广告商根本不需要请摄影师拍照,不需要找一堆灯光设定、也不需要真的拿出一瓶香水,就可以用更便宜更快速的方法,用电脑制作同样效果,无中生有。汽车广告如是、餐厅广告也如是,甚至时装服饰也不再需要请模特儿,不用再为什么太瘦太肥去争议,也没有肖像权问题。然后,我们根本无从得知这是否照片,或是CG,而更重要的是我们本来就不在意洗发水的照片是否真有其事。
没错,摄影曾经是真实影像的最佳代言人(尤其相比绘画)。但摄影最大的价值并不在此,这个道理其实大家都明白,只不过一直以来都没有认清这个概念。举个例,假如你举行婚礼之后,得到两组婚礼的照片,一批是摄影师当日亲身来到现场替你拍照的,而另一批则是由电脑技术员用电脑仿真制作出来的,但两组照片看上去根本不会觉得有什么分别,你会选择哪一批?我猜想大多数人都宁愿要摄影师的。
因为摄影最核心的价值,并非影像的真实程度,而是影像在制作时,以何种方式与真实世界连系。
同样是残忍惨烈的战争影像,以电脑模拟出来的作品,永远都比不上亲赴战场前线的摄影师所拍下来的照片,不单是影像的真实与感觉,而是这种见证的方式才是摄影最伟大的资产。将我们亲眼所见之物拍摄下来,不论对于拍摄者来说,或是对于观众来说,都是无可取代的经验。

在软件Blender里的情况
讽刺的是,我们很多摄影师都在追逐着画面的完美,用各种方法,让照片看上去如CG般无可挑剔;但CG技术员,则调过来用尽方法让CG看起来像照片。而客观事实是,人们对完美图片的需求可以用软件取代,唯独是让影像与现实世界建立一个直接关系的作品,让我们从照片里看到这个世界发生什么事,才是摄影最重要,也最不可能被软件取代的地方。再换句话说,摄影的核心正是摄影师、现实世界与及观众的内在交流(类似于荒木经惟所说的3P)。
这也是为什么原始的针孔摄影、传统的胶片摄影等永远不死,因为那是一种人与现实及影像之间,很直觉而实在的接触与互动方式,并不是数码运算所能取代的经验。数码不能取代胶片,正如摄影从来不能取代绘画。剩下的问题是,假如你的工作正是拍摄一些与现实世界不相干的影像,例如商品摄影,甚至是风景摄影,没有故事,只有完美画面,那么CG将会取代你。
(换个角度?很容易,调整一下参数,再输出,完成。)
到底我们在拍摄什么?当有人投诉你的作品太PS,其实代表人们想要什么照片?我们会否被电脑取代?这些都是值得思考的问题。

 楼主| 发表于 2012-5-31 14:36 |
原文:

Photographers: you’re being replaced by software
May
14
Share This

29 comments

But the kind of realism most distinctive of photography is not an ordinary one. It has little to do either with the post-Renaissance quest for realism in painting or with standard theoretical accounts of realism. It is enormously important, however. Without a clear understanding of it, we cannot hope to explain the power and effectiveness of photography.
— Kendall Walton, Transparent Pictures: On the Nature of Photographic Realism

The image above is one-hundred percent fake. It has no connection whatsoever to the world of things. I created the bolts, lights, textures, and everything else in a free, open-source, relatively easy-to-use software package called Blender. It's easy enough that even a novice user like me is able to make a pretty convincing image. If you are a photographer that makes a living shooting still-life photos, this should scare you. There are many aspects of this workflow that are superior to anything you can do with a camera. It is resolution independent; it is simple to manipulate any aspect of it (including composition and light) after the fact; it requires no physical space to create, and needs only inexpensive, off-the-shelf hardware. And the subject doesn't need to be present at the shoot, it doesn't even need to exist. You can create imagery for advertising, public relations, and market testing before a prototype is built. The one thing it doesn't have that a photograph does is a connection to the real world.

For the first time in history, photography is about to lose control of its monopoly on affordable, convincing realism and it's time for us to understand that realism has never been the most important feature of the photograph. Although we rarely think about it, we understand this intuitively: a computer rendering of your daughter's wedding will never be the same as a photograph even if both are equally realistic. The photograph is defined by its causal, mechanical connection to the real world. Academics have studied this aspect of photography for a long time (for a very clear overview see Kendall Walton's Transparent Pictures: On the Nature of Photographic Realism), but almost from the beginning photographers have stayed blissfully unaware of theory and have systematically ignored and even undermined their medium's connection to the world.


Computer generated imagery and photography are on intersecting trajectories. While photographers employ tools like Portrait Professional that sanitize their portraits, making them look more like renderings, 3D artists are adding blemishes and developing tools like subsurface scattering to make their renderings look more like snapshots. Photographers are fighting to remove noise, CGI artists are adding it; photographers are using digital techniques like focus stacking to extend depth of field, while CGI artists begin with unlimited depth of field and artificially reduce it. At the moment photography is still the most affordable means to quickly create realism in most applications with notable exceptions in large scale cinema productions and car advertising. But the two worlds are about to merge and a large part of the photography industry will be replaced by software.


No water or iPhone needed. Even complex fluid dynamics are becoming relatively easy for someone like me to simulate.


The model as it appears on my screen in Blender.


Need a different angle? No problem, just re-render.

If your photography is primarily about creating visual fantasy, or showing a wished-for world—in short if it is fiction—then it is in danger of being consumed by CGI. Soon, perfectly realistic renderings, even of people, will be cheap and quick. If you are in a market like the fashion magazine industry, which is already indifferent to photography's connection to the real world, why would you deal with the protestations of supermodels when you can just begin with a CGI model instead—the hyper-realistic version of a dressmaker's mannequin who comes with an adjustable cup size and will never complain about her contract. As a photographer, if the connection to reality is irrelevant to your work—like it is in a lot of advertising, product, and even landscape photography—there is a good chance that a sixteen-year-old in Bangladesh will be able to produce marketable imagery for a fraction of the cost. And he won't need a 40-megapixel Hasselblad or studio full of lights. But if you traffic in non-fiction photography, if your work capitalizes on photography's one distinguishing feature, then a rendering will never replace your work. While nobody really cares if the shampoo bottle in a print ad exists or ever did exist, people do care about the connection between an image from a war front and the action it presents. They can't always explain why, but people understand the difference between a photograph and a rendering of the same subject even if the two are almost indistinguishable. It's the same difference we feel (to borrow Kendall Walton's example) when we look at Goya's Tanto y mas and Timothy H. O'Sullivan's photographs of the Civil War. It's not about the realism, but rather the fact that renderings and drawing can't bear witness in the way a photograph can. This is where photography distinguishes itself as a medium and it's time for photographers to embrace it.

Tagged: Digital Alterations · Theory · Photography Business
发表于 2012-5-31 14:46 |
英文看不懂,我想电脑永远不会取代相机的
发表于 2012-5-31 15:19 |
逼真高超,但永远无法摄影。就如同整容永远无法取代自然天成。
发表于 2012-5-31 15:24 |
美容也要在原来的基础上进行的,看来电脑是决定取决不了相机的。
发表于 2012-5-31 15:26 |
本帖最后由 戈满江红 于 2012-5-31 15:27 编辑

要相信这个世界只有想不到的事情没有做不到的事情!
发表于 2012-5-31 15:36 |
本帖最后由 石头头 于 2012-5-31 15:52 编辑

想来会  来回想  看 历史发展情形吧  
发表于 2012-5-31 15:44 |
太逼真了,后期确实很强大,已经远离摄影的初衷了
发表于 2012-5-31 16:07 |
相机终有一天会像甲骨一样被淘汰,成为文物古物...
发表于 2012-5-31 18:07 |
有些时候,同一个图片,后期了有人说好,没后期就不好,我们到底是要后期还是前期,感觉很困惑!
发表于 2012-5-31 23:31 |
有可能噢         
发表于 2012-6-1 09:34 |
科技的发展,时代的进步,新生事物会不断涌现。
 楼主| 发表于 2012-6-4 10:00 |
大家各抒己见,讨论很热烈呀。
老色也说几句。
 楼主| 发表于 2012-6-4 10:04 |
其实类似的问题早就有很多了,比如照相术刚刚基本成熟时,就有人惊呼:绘画要消亡了。
 楼主| 发表于 2012-6-4 10:05 |
电视机逐步普及时又有人感叹:这下电影完蛋了
公司简介 | 合作联系 | 广告服务 | 加入光影中国 | 帮助中心 | 服务中心 | 使用条款 | 意见反馈
快速回复 返回顶部 返回列表