Another nail in the coffin for still photography

[bmattock]

http://gear.ign.com/articles/979/979350p1.html

The Death of Still Photography
Esquire debuts the world's first print magazine cover captured from a video source. What could it mean for SLR photography?
by Chris Iaquinta

May 4, 2009 - Anyone that has used a video camera for any type of production knows that when you use screen captures of the footage, the quality is mediocre at best. However, times are a-changin' and Esquire magazine is making history, producing a video-sourced cover image for their latest issue.

 

[Photosynthetech]

It's neat, but for me it gets a "meh."

 

[dazedgonebye]

So, put the model in front of the lights, run a few seconds of video and pour over hundreds of frames to select just the right expression/stance.
Sounds doable.

 

[capitalK]

A hammer can pound in a screw, doesn't mean it should.

 

[photogdave]

I was capturing stills from Sony video cameras 10 years ago in a green screen studio on a Princess Cruises ship. We made 5x7s, 8x10s and even 16x20 canvas prints!
Whether we end up with video cameras that can shoot high quality stills (RED) or still cameras that can shoot high quality video (5D MK II), there will always be a need for both types of media. Still cameras won't be dead, they'll just have more features.

 

[Pickett Wilson]

Dallas Morning News has been using video grabs for their newsprint photos for years. Now that we have the resolution to get magazine quality grabs, you'll see more and more of it.

 

[J J Kapsberger]

The quote from the article refers to the future of SLR photography. You, Bill, have projected the reference on to all of still photography. Why?

It seems I'm looking at a still photo, one which was selected from many taken one after the other while a button was pressed. It seems the firing rate has simply increased through the use of video. Heretofore, motor drives were used to obtain a bunch of shots from which a keeper could be selected. What essentially has changed aside from the firing rate?

 

[lensjunkie]

I don't buy the whole "dying" bit. Every 5 years rolling stone has their "Is rock dead?" cover. Every few years Source has their "Is hip-hop dead?" cover.

CDs haven't killed vinyl!
Television didn't kill the cinema. Television didn't kill the radio.

Photography didn't kill painting, but instead inspired a revolution in the medium.

The tools for the medium will always be evolving, but this just means new edges to explore and push.

And really, as long as I get to make pictures, I'll be ok.

 

[P. Lynn Miller]

I agree... I would find it hard to hold the camera steady while photographing Megan Fox in her skimpies...

Oh, you are referring the article in the magazine... hmmm...

 

[Gumby]

Maybe this is a first for Escquire, but there are books in print which have illustrations, including cover, that has been fully sourced from video. The quality sucks, but I don't think photography is dead or dying because of it.

But thanks, Chicken Little, this was an interesting article. 🙂

 

[Ducky]

So, put the model in front of the lights, run a few seconds of video and pour over hundreds of frames to select just the right expression/stance.
Sounds doable.

Isn't that what they do now with film, only it takes hours.

 

[P. Lynn Miller]

Fred,

As you would well know these 'beauty' shoots with chicks in 'skimpies' get pretty tiresome, really quick. In fact, one of these high-speed cameras would have been welcome at the last swimsuit shoot if would have gotten the shoot finished earlier and I could have gone home sooner...

As for the high frame-rate camera concept, I remember hearing about 240 - 120 rolls of 6x7 frames of Ektachrome being burned for a cover shoot not too long ago. Same model, same set, same swimsuit... so not much difference really.

 

[bmattock]

The quote from the article refers to the future of SLR photography. You, Bill, have projected the reference on to all of still photography. Why?

The title of the article I linked to is "The Death of Still Photography." Sorry, not my projection.

It seems I'm looking at a still photo, one which was selected from many taken one after the other while a button was pressed. It seems the firing rate has simply increased through the use of video. Heretofore, motor drives were used to obtain a bunch of shots from which a keeper could be selected. What essentially has changed aside from the firing rate?

Motor drives on still cameras were not used as replacements for motion pictures, and vice-versa (with exceptions as others have noted). This appears to be a move closer towards a grand convergence of sorts, one in which a PJ might not take a still camera at all, just a video camera capable of high-quality stills, such as the Red One.

 

[literiter]

This appears to be a move closer towards a grand convergence of sorts

I think this is an interesting observation, and I agree. Where else can we go?

Now I'm a completely amateur, boy with a camera, but in the past I've used all sorts of stuff; 4x5 Speed Graphics, 16mm film, 8mm film, 35mm still, Digital Video.....all that, like most of us I suspect.

Now it will be something else, perhaps.

I guess I'm a little too old now to really give a $hi+, I think I'll stay where I am.

 

[regularchickens]

Not to mention that the Red uses a half-frame-sized sensor. I can't really see this particular tool catching on for shoots in big glossies. This is a stunt, but it may be a sign of things to come.

 

[btgc]

Why bother with any kind of cameras? Pictures can be generated by software, anyway 🙂

 

[Justin Smith]

Another consideration when using video-captures will be the required use of hot lights (or maybe some high-speed strobe?).

 

[dnk512]

SLR is the most attacked form of still photography. Even before digital. Funny how it still goes strong. Ever wonder why? It is the same reason rangefinder photography is popular. The experience through the viewfinder. Each with its followers, each with clear advantages for certain types of photography.

Now would PJ turn into video only? If it conveys more info, in less time, using less resources (pick at least 2), then sure. Why would that effect me?

 

[DougFord]

Another consideration when using video-captures will be the required use of hot lights (or maybe some high-speed strobe?).

Just like shooting porn. 😀


But if they can increase the resolution while maintaining the frame rates, why wouldn’t you use this technology for this application?
Maybe even use a couple/three positioned at different perspectives while a fan blows on the models hair. Do a couple/three five minute takes and then tell the model to take a hike. Edit, post process and print.
How does this technology affect a bunch of schleps that take snaps using film that they've stuffed into an old mechanical RF camera? Not much.

 

[sepiareverb]

With the amount of post processing this file has gotten to be a magazine cover it could have been shot with a phone. That will be next eh? Camera phones the death of P&S cameras. Or maybe Nikon dSLR shoots video, is this the death of Television? Wait, movies are shot on video now, so that would be the death of Hollywood. But I thought print media was already dead and gone, so this would be something dead using something new to kill something formerly cutting edge but currently only standard.

I've got firewood to split.