Bob, The "next big things" come more swiftly now and people have no time to become nostalgic for the old. Now that it's "imaging" and not photography the next big innovation will be seen as routine. The last big change in automobiles was in the fifties when they got fins. I'm more interested in what kind of art evolves with a technology. I'm sure it will not be salon prints even if is the digital paper variety that contains many images. And you thought slide shows were boring! The next imaging tech will be flat lens/sensors coated on regular glasses. The magnification ratio will be determined by the shape of the user's eyes as they focus. Of course, after that will come corneal implants. They may be adopted more slowly because they are harder to accessorize. One tried-and-true incentive for quick adoption is to have porn broadcast straight to people's eye balls. Whole lot'a day-dreamin' goin' on! AZ Build a Lookaround! The Lookaround Book, 4Th ed. Now an E-book. http://www.panoramacamera.us > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: NYTimes take on the future. > From: Bob Maxey <written_by@xxxxxxx> > Date: Thu, February 02, 2006 6:53 pm > To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students > <photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > >>>I think you are right on with regard to tossing out the old film-based > think and starting over (let Steve Jobs' people do it) . The shape and > controls of cameras can take on any form. Why not let the user set up > their own workspace? The physical shape could be modified with a > modular "Rubik's cube" - like core and clip on parts to customize the > ergonomics. It's styling will need must-have sales appeal like the > iPod. Making consumer goods that spend most of their life in a pocket > is a real challenge. It will have to be accessorized. >>> > > > > I have seen this same discussion applied to lots of stuff. I do not think digital cameras represent a huge shift. It is just another a camera and most people know what a camera is. It takes pictures and for many, the underlying technology matters little because it is cheap and prints are immediately accessible. > > > > Rather than darkrooms and paper, we have computers, PS and printers. It is nothing more than evolution. History shows that new technology replaces old and people do not like it. I do not like the loss of paper in 100 different sizes, surfaces, and grades; from a dozen manufacturers. Like Defender. > > > > I remember when video tape came along. They largely replaced film. The film user was faced with the same general problems the video users faced. All that was left was the technology. Tubes and electronics replaced sensitized film stock and the public perhaps did not care. All they wanted was home movies. > > > > Now we have digital cameras. The majority of users do not know about interchangeable lenses, Dektol, and Kodabromide because these things are not required. Now it is ink cartridges, not Dektol; paper for their printer, not light sensitive darkroom papers. So I suppose some comparisons will always be made. Perhaps not much has changed after all. > > > > Some of us know the way it once was and we tend to compare things. > > > > Here is an Einstein-esque Thought Experiment to try: What comes after digital? Can anyone think of some technology that could possibly replace the digital camera? I might suggest digital paper. That is a paper that could be imaged and then erased if the results are not to the photographer's liking. > > > > Bob > > ... > > > Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com >
