Another nail in the coffin for still photography

Yeah, but who wants to edit 10,000 pictures to find the optimal "decisive moment?"

And think about the horrific storage requirements, not to mention the chore of backups, which would be multiplied a thousand-fold!
 
The camera of the future just may be a hybrid still/video or video/still, chose which ever is your preference, but it is still a camera. You will have more choice so what is the problem exactly?

Bob
 
it is an image. a magazine cover. it does not matter if it's made w/ a leica, a film slr, TLR, video this or that.
it's irrelevant.
it's an image. what matters is the brain behind the image.
 
Nikon Bob said:
The camera of the future just may be a hybrid still/video or video/still, chose which ever is your preference, but it is still a camera. You will have more choice so what is the problem exactly?

Bob
Click to expand...

My problem is how much extra am I being charged for the feature set that I don't want, and have the compromises made to make a "jack of all trades, master of none" image capture device costing me quality that I might have in a dedicated device that performs the exact function I need.

Are they going to stuff an MP3 player and speakers in there as well?

Maybe next they'll merge my hammer and my screwdriver...
 
Things are changing faster than ever, get used to it, don't panic, flow man, flow... I've had more people with digital ask me about film, in the last few months... there hooked on photography and want to try "the real thing".... we'll all be doing more than we ever dreamed of in 5 years... life's a blast, enjoy it.... could be worse, just keep breathing.
 
Might have guessed photojournalism to be right up there with the initial users but editorial may have the budgets. Expensive RED camera to bang around in search of news maybe studio work is a better investment.
 
colker said:
red has this camera. a nikon d90 is this camera. cool. excellent.
Click to expand...

I realize that there are cameras out there that have that feature, for lack of a better word, but I was thinking of the day when every camera came so equipped. I still don;t understand the uproar that some make over this.

Bob
 
Al Patterson said:
My problem is how much extra am I being charged for the feature set that I don't want, and have the compromises made to make a "jack of all trades, master of none" image capture device costing me quality that I might have in a dedicated device that performs the exact function I need.

Are they going to stuff an MP3 player and speakers in there as well?

Maybe next they'll merge my hammer and my screwdriver...
Click to expand...

When and if the time comes that the ability to take still and video is a standard feature on all cameras the extra cost will be negligible. I agree that is not the case now but you still have the choice to go the cheaper route by omitting the video option. I do understand wanting simplicity but today that just does not seem possible with a lot of goods.

Bob
 
The one with guy standing in front of the tanks was from a video feed.

I can't wind and shoot with my IIIf that fast to appear as a movie but Tom's Rapidwinder should narrow the playing field!
 
Nikon Bob said:
When and if the time comes that the ability to take still and video is a standard feature on all cameras the extra cost will be negligible. I agree that is not the case now but you still have the choice to go the cheaper route by omitting the video option. I do understand wanting simplicity but today that just does not seem possible with a lot of goods.

Bob
Click to expand...

It's easy to keep costs down when you stay at generation N-1 or N-2 from current generation equipment.

It also depends on what the meaning of "negligible" is. I'm still not convinced that both the SLR centric and video centric "true believers" will both accept the compromises a dual mode system will need to have.

But, I've been wrong before, and I'm not here to argue. I'm just seeing what other still photo centric RFF users think.
 
Richard, if you want to save up enough money for an M10 (it'll take that long doing it this way...LOL) pick up discarded disposeable lighters whenever you find one. What's left of the flint inside is usually as long as a new Zippo flint.
 
"Video" has been so long irrelevant from my own reference point as for this to be minor news. Frame-grabs for newspaper or magazine covers are anything but new. Sometimes it's the only available image, and I have no problem with that in the main. The fact that Esquire used something along these lines doesn't bother me much: that magazine hollowed itself out so long ago it's tough to remember the precise point of its decline.

As far as the "camera of the future" is concerned, there are countervailing forces about: there's a push for more image quality and clarity, but what, precisely, is happening to the media in which said quality and clarity would likely be noticed? Few people would seem to be prepared to discuss the matter. (I'm thinking of an old Quentin Crisp quote: Don't try and 'keep up with the Joneses': drag them down to your level.)

Believe me, I've had the whole still-versus-moving in my mid for decades, ever since I was aware of the notion of still photographers "moving up" to motion pictures. I thought it malarkey then, and haven't changed my mind much. Of course, I rarely watch TV, so I have to be a weirdo. 😉

- Barrett
 
Last edited:
Ok..Esquire's "art director" really missed out on a great chance to take this gimmick and show us how creative he ore she was in picking the one frame out of 24 per second were generated. Make a cover or inside foldout showing the "shoot" sample of maybe three seconds of small frames on 2 pages. A good gimmick for selling the issue.

What this really underlines is the total lack of creative effort that the magazines staff is committed to !! Advertising and the Print media are not in this business for the high quality of creative icons they create but rather the low cost and low effort required to "slop" together a issue and then go drinking. You are looking at a shift in magazines towards e- publishing methods in order to break even. Iam sure that we will see a video covers for magazines online that are a tie-in for the print issue.

The other great example of this Esquire story is that once again quality of image content is really of no interest to art directors. I am will to be that a "irving Penn" imitation or homage image could have made a bigger impact. but the cost would have been the deal breaker....it really is all about the money and bottom line. There is no value added magazine on the stand today. Sad but true. Best Regards...Laurance
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom