wackywallwalker

So which back would you choose, and which internal organ would you be wiling to sacrifice for it? Additionally will there ever be a full frame (or near full frame) 4x5 single shot digital back? Using a full frame 645 back on a 4x5 still seems like a lot of wasted space.

http://www.phaseone.com/Content/p1digitalbacks/P65...

http://www.leafamerica.com/products_afi-10.asp

Photographs have always been dependent upon technology whereas creativity for the most part exists independently of any technological advancement. Yet many photographers that I have met or listen to equate technological advances in photography, in particular digital photography as a threat to their job security. But could technology ever be a threat to the livelihood of photographers? Case in point. My last question had to deal with the next advancement in photography. As so many pointed out, the biggest difference between a pro and an amature is creativity and more basic, an understanding of design fundamentals, a gap which some engineers at an undisclosed company is trying to bridge . Imagine a camera that had a basic understanding of 2D design concepts as well as color theory that could relay to the user with a simple green or red light whether a scene was aesthetically pleasing or not according to basic design concepts/models.

It certainly seems there is. Ever since the advent of photography there has been a rift amongst practioners of so called pure photography vs. the so called practioners of soft focus/manipulated photography. On one side of the fence resides your Ansel Adams types, and on the other side Jerry Uelsman types. Although one would assume that the manipulator would spend more time in the darkroom(or behind the computer) you will find that zone system photographers or self described straight photographers spend equal if not more time in the darkroom. The question I am trying to get at is that isnt all photography a manipulation of reality in that the human eye and the camera are not a 1:1 basis and that straight should not equate or be assumed as reality. One only needs to look at the original negatives of moonrise over hernandez and the various printed renditions of the aforementioned negative to see that there is a disparity between reality, camera reality and human imagination.

Starting with the daguerreotype and continuing to present times, photography has evolved from a very difficult, tedious, time consuming, expensive process, that only professionals used, into a quick, efficient, relatively inexpensive medium practiced by just about everyone. Digital photography as I see is just a continuation of this historical trend. So the question I pose is what is next? Perhaps new camera design, software, print technology? I personally feel that print technology is not where it should be in comparison to the advances that have been made in sensor technology, but I would like to hear opinions.