Isn’t there a case for :
“think of all the photographs that were NOT taken because the technology did not allow for it” ?
Interesting thought. We, of coarse, will never know what pictures were not taken.
All the new fancy cameras make the difficult easier to do, more portable, and more affordable than ever before. But I am not sure they are really breaking new ground.
Eadward Muybridge did fast motion imaging in the 1870's.
Heck, Henri Cartier-Bresson was capturing the decisive moment about 100 years ago.
It would be interesting to see what images can be taken with the newest cameras, that could not be taken with the d300, or even older cameras.
There are probably some esoteric items that can be photographed now that could not be captured before- but I can not think of any.
It may be easier, but does that count in art?
Quality may be slightly improved in the newer cameras, but non photographers rarely care about that. I personally saw an exhibition of Ansel Adams works, his prints. They were soft. They were still wonderful- I suspect I was one of the few that day that noticed they were soft. Only photographers care, others look at the image- not the pixels.
On the other side of the argument, should we wait for better equipment before we go make images? Equipment will always get better.
I just do not see the images from the true artists significantly improving over time.
I hope I am wrong, but at the same time I am going to shoot today,.
Even with the best equipment, I can not duplicate something as simple as a pepper. I have tried. My newest and greatest camera does not give me any talent. Bummer.
Gary