Are we losing touch with photography?

[dave lackey]

This thread is inspired by "Are we losing touch with our cameras?"

My point being: the switch from individual "metal" dials to menus is nothing compared to years from now when "still photography" means plucking a frame out of thousands in a video stream.

The emphasize on video in camera reviews, blogs, magazines, and so on is starting to nauseate me.

I bet some enterprising wedding photographers in California already created a wedding-book out of video frames taken using his/her Canon 7D. Knowing the following as a harsh fact: typical brides and grooms don't know enough about quality to care. And probably in ten years as the video output continues to improve, they don't have to care.

Don't get me wrong, being a true cinematographer is no joke, and takes a lot of effort to do, but to lose what we know now as photography because every guy/girl with cameras -- with the help of camera manufacturers -- think that they can (or want to) become one, is sad.

But that's my view, I want to know yours.

Do you think in the future we will just have digital video cameras?

Well, it depends. We (the market) are at the mercy of the marketeers. THEY argue that they only give us what we want. WE, on the other hand, are sheep and follow everyone else.

It really is up to us, the photographic community.

Video sucks. I have boxes of videos from years past and have no interest in viewing them...too much trouble, too much time, etc. Whereas still photos can be framed and grace your walls or desk or anywhere that you decide and take no effort to view.

The marketeers are always dictating what we buy. It is time to resist!😎

 

[dave lackey]

I think for sports / action, this could work great. However, imagine videotaping the streets or whatever all day and then editing that boring footage down to a few frames. Horrible.

My D2H and D2X with a fast 70-200mm VR lens beat the hell out of any video production I ever competed against when shooting sports. My DVD's had art-like images that were not possible with camcorders.

Think about it. Why do you think most pros at events are seen with the mega lenses on DSLR's?

Video still sucks.😛

 

[lilmsmaggie]

Here's an interesting take on the topic of automation, and intelligence in general:

http://www.npr.org/2011/01/02/132591244/our-brains-are-shrinking-are-we-getting-dumber

so, taking into account the OP original question:

" Do you think in the future we will just have digital video cameras?"

and the premise that our brains have been shrinking for the past 10,000 to 20,000 years, the answer to the question becomes a resounding -- "Yes," because we'll be too dumb to think for ourselves.

 

[Neare]

Just ask the photographer whether they prefer the process of making the photo or simply getting a good result.

If you're just getting cut up because there are people out there getting much better shots for far less effort, then you want more out of photography rather than simply its enjoyment. If so, if you want to compete with the big boys you have to reinvent yourself (or create a niche market). Just how it works.

Why use a sharp stone to cut your food when knives have been invented?

 

[Hammerklavier]

Some of you reckon that the photo with the little girl running away from the napalm bombing is probably the most famous/important in history in another thread. We can also consider the portrait of Che or the Agfan Girl.

If these photos are taken or selected from a video, will this make the photos and the photographers lesser or even invalid?

Yes, it is tedious and requires a lot of patience but at the end of the day, isn't it the end product (ie. the photograph) that counts irregardless of the equipment or the method?

I am using a film rangefinder and is enjoying a lot on the street, finding the moments and seeing the elements of composition come together to form a picture. I am just curious what other people think of the above even though I would most likely continue and enjoy my still photography.

 

[shadowfox]

Some of you reckon that the photo with the little girl running away from the napalm bombing is probably the most famous/important in history in another thread. We can also consider the portrait of Che or the Agfan Girl.

If these photos are taken or selected from a video, will this make the photos and the photographers lesser or even invalid?

Yes, it is tedious and requires a lot of patience but at the end of the day, isn't it the end product (ie. the photograph) that counts irregardless of the equipment or the method?

I am using a film rangefinder and is enjoying a lot on the street, finding the moments and seeing the elements of composition come together to form a picture. I am just curious what other people think of the above even though I would most likely continue and enjoy my still photography.

You captured the distinction between the two end goals of photography: documenting an event vs capturing that fleeting moment.

I would submit that in the case of documentation, plucking a frame out of a video will become the norm. The risk of not catching the right moment will eclipse the effort to find that moment in a video stream. At least that will be a big part of the justification.

However, the second goal of photography: Capturing that special moment (not event), cannot be satisfied using motion-video cameras. This is what I had in mind when I asked the question in my original post.

For all of us who likes the act of taking pictures, the trend is not in our favor.

And since manufacturers follow trend, there is a good chance that we will not have any other way to take a picture other than using a video camera (not a camera anymore) in the not-so-distant future.

Of course if film ever settled on a stable and sustainable niche market size, we all still can use our old cameras (which I prefer anyways) until they are no longer usable.

 

[shadowfox]

Btw, I'm impressed with some of the comments in this thread.
I learned quite a few things from those who obviously put some thoughts before typing the reply.

 

[venchka]

Btw, I'm impressed with some of the comments in this thread.
I learned quite a few things from those who obviously put some thoughts before typing the reply.

You want thought? Good grief. Next there will be a test. 😱 😎
I am thoughtfully reflecting on the responses to date. Saving money to fund a wet plate hobby if/when I run out of film. 🙂
The decisive frame #1234 out of 3,456,789. Sorry. Doesn't do it for me.

 

[btgc]

Sometimes I discover good shot only going through scans. Isn't this similar to picking out frame of video?

I think, going out with still camera and to capture magic moments at their peak still is different from finding them in archive or video sequence.

But then, how many today are driving Ford T, common vehicle in it's time? I think over time our film cameras all will be T's - questions is, how long this time will be?

 

[RayPA]

My D2H and D2X with a fast 70-200mm VR lens beat the hell out of any video production I ever competed against when shooting sports. My DVD's had art-like images that were not possible with camcorders.

Think about it. Why do you think most pros at events are seen with the mega lenses on DSLR's?

Video still sucks.😛

Sure, for now but in the future (??). Give it some time. 😉

I think for sports / action, this could work great. However, imagine videotaping the streets or whatever all day and then editing that boring footage down to a few frames. Horrible.

I think it depends on the approach. It really wouldn't be necessary to walk around all day with the camcorder recording everything. One could use the same approach as shooting with an RF on the street, see something, press the shutter and record--except each press is 5-15 seconds of video.

For example, I know this is film, but I see a bunch of decent street shots in this Robert Frank S8 film of the Rolling Stones..
IINM, Frank and the Stones used images from this film for the Exile on Main Street album cover.


/

 

[sig]

I might be a bit daft but what is the difference between 'documenting an event' and 'capturing a fleeting moment'? 'Capturing a fleeting moment' is only documenting too.

'Capturing that special moment (not event), cannot be satisfied using motion-video cameras' Why?

From my little place in the world it would seem like you could capture more fleeting moments using video, just because all moments are captured.

But I think the editing process after video usage would be to tiresome for me so I will probably stick to photographs.

You captured the distinction between the two end goals of photography: documenting an event vs capturing that fleeting moment.

I would submit that in the case of documentation, plucking a frame out of a video will become the norm. The risk of not catching the right moment will eclipse the effort to find that moment in a video stream. At least that will be a big part of the justification.

However, the second goal of photography: Capturing that special moment (not event), cannot be satisfied using motion-video cameras. This is what I had in mind when I asked the question in my original post.

For all of us who likes the act of taking pictures, the trend is not in our favor.

And since manufacturers follow trend, there is a good chance that we will not have any other way to take a picture other than using a video camera (not a camera anymore) in the not-so-distant future.

Of course if film ever settled on a stable and sustainable niche market size, we all still can use our old cameras (which I prefer anyways) until they are no longer usable.

 

[venchka]

Then the world of photojournalism will be taken over by the traffic cam operators. And all of the various web cams scattered about at tourist destinations, schools, etc.

 

[Leflaneur]

Losing Touch with Photography...

Losing Touch with Photography...

A thought provoking question, but specious in a way. Photography's 'democratic' nature is oftimes listed as one of its greatest weaknesses, but I'm of the opinion that with the upsurge in sheer numbers of cameras which engulf the widest possible spectrum of 'practitioners' will invariably provide a rich tapestry of life here on this giddy blue sphere. I worked in photo retail in the halycion days of 35mm selling motorized Nikons to rank amateurs and Diana F's to seasoned pro's with striking AND boring results from each camp. The results will speak for themselves and the occaisional "iconic" image, despite the cacaphony of clicking shutters throughout the world, will rise up to satisfy even the most jaded naysayers bemoaning this mythical disconnect.


Dana
Leica M5, IIIf, dlux-4; Contax III, IIIa, Fed-2, Graflex XLRF, Yashica Electro, and a host of SLR's too numerous to list.

 

[GSNfan]

A thought provoking question, but specious in a way. Photography's 'democratic' nature is oftimes listed as one of its greatest weaknesses, but I'm of the opinion that with the upsurge in sheer numbers of cameras which engulf the widest possible spectrum of 'practitioners' will invariably provide a rich tapestry of life here on this giddy blue sphere. I worked in photo retail in the halycion days of 35mm selling motorized Nikons to rank amateurs and Diana F's to seasoned pro's with striking AND boring results from each camp. The results will speak for themselves and the occaisional "iconic" image, despite the cacaphony of clicking shutters throughout the world, will rise up to satisfy even the most jaded naysayers bemoaning this mythical disconnect.


Dana
Leica M5, IIIf, dlux-4; Contax III, IIIa, Fed-2, Graflex XLRF, Yashica Electro, and a host of SLR's too numerous to list.

The problem with photographs are that its hard to judge them. With time what was considered bad pictures suddenly become the new look... This being a constant trend in photography, its better not to judge photographs.

 

[Spyro]

If you cant recognise a good photo when you're walking with a camera, how is returning home with 1 terabyte of visual chaos going to help you? Photography is about editing things out of the visual chaos of this world. If you cant do it in real life I doubt if you can do it in front of a computer. And those who can do it in front of a computer could have probably done it with a still camera in the first place. Its only the press of a button.

 

[shadowfox]

I might be a bit daft but what is the difference between 'documenting an event' and 'capturing a fleeting moment'? 'Capturing a fleeting moment' is only documenting too.

'Capturing that special moment (not event), cannot be satisfied using motion-video cameras' Why?

From my little place in the world it would seem like you could capture more fleeting moments using video, just because all moments are captured.

But I think the editing process after video usage would be to tiresome for me so I will probably stick to photographs.

You're not daft at all.
The distinction that I make is between:

Documenting an event *as the end goal*. Wedding photographers, Journalists, Sports photographer are good example of this. They may enjoy taking pictures, but the majority of them will not have a problem switching to video.

Especially when the technology is practical enough so they don't have to manually sift through thousands of frames (and all the technological trend is heading this way). That's why the argument of "boring and tedious, so people won't do it" will not apply in the near future.

vs

Enjoying the act of capturing a fleeting moment (think about why people don't use video-camera for street-photography). Here, the end goal is the experience of capturing, which of course is not complete without the final photograph, but the photograph itself is not the end goal.

Street photographers, Still-life photographers, portraiture, are probably the best examples for this case. I submit that these people would be the most resistant to being forced to switch to a video camera.