[shuttertalk]

Looks like we're on the endangered species list...

   

If you thought that image above was real, you'd be mistaken - it's completely computer generated using a free, open source graphics software called Blender.

http://www.petapixel.com/2012/05/15/phot...-software/

This article makes some great points:

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.

Furthermore, if you don't like the angle, you can always rotate, re-position objects and re-render it without having to stuff around with models, subjects etc.

I think the problem in the past with CGI is that it looks too perfect; however the software and tools are improving in leaps and bounds and there are so many packages and tools that can introduce blemishes, imperfections etc. that make CGI more realistic. We're already seeing it in the movie world - don't be surprised if you start seeing super-realistic CGI ads and product shots in glossy magazines...

[Pavel]

Hmmm - I wonder if you are going to use the software to create images of your kids growing up?

[shuttertalk]

Great idea! Skip kids altogether, and just make up the memories!

[NT73]

That would save you enough, to buy both cameras, and Blender.

[Kombisaurus]

Hmmm - I wonder if you are going to use the software to create images of your kids growing up?

Here you go.