UKC

My prediction for what its worth

digital sensor technology and digital storage technology will continue to evolve.

We will all end up with digital video cameras built into spectacles capable of recording every image in front of our face for a lifetime

The trick then will be to use powerful search engine technology to find each and every vision/memory according to key word

Everybody will be able to search and see everybody elses images using Napster type file sharing technology

And it will all end in tears

In reply to kevin stephens: Wow, thats deep but probably true.

In reply to kevin stephens: only for the vain, hopefully

In reply to kevin stephens:

So people'll know when yer wankin'...

In reply to kevin stephens: Will we all look like Joe 90 then?

In reply to kevin stephens: Its all ending in tears as it is.
But thats a deep thought dude... and I reckon it wont be long before all us Winstons end up with spec cams...

you on the malt tonight?

In reply to kevin stephens:

THE DEMOCRATIC IMAGE
Photography and Globalisation
21st – 22nd April 2007
Mechanics Centre, Manchester, UK

At the dawn of the new millennium technology is offering us countless possibilities to create, view, explore and distribute images. This explosion of opportunity is challenging the way we interpret and value photography as well as allowing communities who would otherwise be unheard the chance of meaningful self-representation.
The Democratic Image symposium seeks to chart this new landscape and investigates the extent to which technological innovation is becoming the foundation for a new democracy.

TICKET PRICES (On sale from 26th January 2007)
£70 Event rate (If booked up to the 16th March)
£50 Concessionary event rate (If booked up to the 16th March)
£90 Event rate (After 16th March)
£70 Concessionary event rate (After 16th March)

Day tickets (subject to availability) on sale after 16th March

In reply to kevin stephens:

Undoubtedly one of the most important issues surrounding photography in the past decade has been concerned with the implications of electronic and digital technologies for traditional chemical based photographic practices. From the late 1980’s, and gathering pace with the increasing availability of these new technologies, the force of critical opinion has lain largely with those who have sought to reconcile us to the ‘death of photography’. They believe that the medium’s privileged status as an arbiter of truth and reality had been fatally undermined by computer imaging.
How do we construe photography’s relationship to the real, and about the relationship between our reading of the photographic image and our understanding of the technologies that helped to produce that image. Is a ‘traditional’ photographic large format image more real than a digital camera phone image?
The question Where is the photograph? presupposes that we have lost sight of photography or that photography is somehow lost; that it has lost direction perhaps or that we do not find it where it should be; that it has been misplaced somewhere, unclaimed, in some lost property office of culture.

In reply to Henry Iddon:

Perhaps there should be a discussion as to whether art and photography are now closer than ever with the ability to manipulate pictures to remove telegraph poles etc to idealise the scene?

In reply to sutty:

That's not new. Ansel Adams was doing that and he was by no means the first

In reply to smithy:

I dont like people watching me on the toilet.

In reply to sutty: Hey Sutty dont, one of my pix was marked down for Iain clearing up the background for me, cos its not art see, it has to be 'real' if its photography!

In reply to kevin stephens:

Photography is a fairly new art form. A couple of hundred years old. Before that people painted pictures. Almost all portraits were changed so that the subject would find it more pleasing and pay for it or ask for another one. Many classic scenes had bits left out that the artist felt detracted from the subject or had things added in.
Photography on film has also often been tampered with, filterd, cropped, blurred etc. Even using different depth of focus can be used to blur the background, where the human eye would see everything in focus.
The human brain automatically erases/ignores mundane objects like lamp posts, cars etc.

Computer Immage manipulation is just an extension of this.

Glasses with cameras in, don't think the wife would agree to it, and you wouldn't be able to wear them watching school plays, or at swimming pools.

Smithy, if people want to watch me ....ing they can pay for it. But although I've had plenty of practice and am very good at it, somehow I don't think I would make much money.

In reply to TimR:

....and your mates hack into yer PC and get proof you really did do that moose....

In reply to Removed User:

That's what camera phones are for.