Are we losing touch with photography?

shadowfox

shadowfox

Darkroom printing lives
Local time
12:59 PM
Joined
Oct 24, 2006
Messages
8,770
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?
 
Yes! Definitely Yes!
From the Manufacturer POW why worried about "Decisive Moment" when you just take 60 FPS and pick the"Moment".
Now, I do believe that some of us still will take one "Frame" at the time and not the 180.. if not, just see if they can catch it....

Never used movie mode, not even on my P&S... not even Live mode on the DSLR.. I'm old I guess...
 
Every time an advance in video technology has been made, more people get into video, most of whom have no interest in still photography. This was true with Super-8 (I can remember the lights my father used... :eek:), it was true of VHS & all the other formats since. As it gets easier there will be more and more people who are interested in making bad home movies. There's nothing particularly good or bad about this, it's just the nature of the tech.

I think it's likely that there will still be some still cameras available but they'll either cheap P&S or the equivalent to the M9, EOS 1 or F6 - expensive niche fillers.
 
back alley said:
Do you think in the future we will just have digital video cameras?

i sure hope not...
Click to expand...

Hell no I remember people showing me videos of their great trips, it was boring to the max and they would last for an hour. It has scarred me for life:mad: It would be the worst if all people were shooting was high def holiday videos :bang: it will put suicide rates up.
 
It seems to me that in the future, every old technology will be jettisoned in favor of the NEW. In this regard, the 21st century began in about 1980.
 
I think the issue is being inflated, as has always been the case with photography since its beginnings. If you've taken an art history class, you'll remember the aestheticians in the 19th century who write about photography robbing traditional art. The same is going on here, and I don't think it's a cause for worry.

You say "every guy/girl with cameras -- with the help of camera manufacturers -- think that they can (or want to) become one, is sad", but this has always been the case. There are so few 'good' artists out of this lot that it will still remain a legitimate art form which is difficult to master whether it's digital or film. If you're upset at 13 year olds running around with SLRs, also realize that millions of kids take guitar lessons so they can be stars like Joe Jonas. It isn't really a threat to the medium.

Also, if you notice, the best digital films have generally been shot by cinematographers who have otherwise shot film their whole lives (Zodiac, Serious Man, etc.). If you're afraid that kids with inexpensive HD cameras think they're going to be the next Savides, I wouldn't worry. That takes a combination of intelligence (outside of photography), dedication and formalism that is obviously not apparent in mainstream imaging. mainstream photography has always been a novelty.
 
Last edited:
al1966 said:
Hell no I remember people showing me videos of their great trips, it was boring to the max and they would last for an hour. It has scarred me for life:mad: It would be the worst if all people were shooting was high def holiday videos :bang: it will put suicide rates up.
Click to expand...

...or high def videos of their cats...;)
 
wlewisiii said:
Every time an advance in video technology has been made, more people get into video,
Click to expand...

... and out again. People may be fascinated owning the things, but when (outside of weddings, major family festivities and school theatre performances) have you seen anyone use one? The total footage they shoot of their brats has not really grown since Super 8 days. And just like less than half the Super 8 footage sold was ever developed (and even less screened) most DV cassettes and SDHC chips get shelved unseen. A video service technician I know once said that most of the consumer cameras he had on his bench had less than ten head hours on them.
 
Sevo, I agree. However they aren't interested in stills either and what they do buy biases the manufactures towards making more of that kind of camera instead.

Not sure what was worse - bad home movies or bad home slide shows... Ugh!
 
I think these fears of picking the best frame out of a video steam and "ruining photography" are unfounded, and a logically fallacious "slippery slope" argument. There's a simple reason. To do this requires time and effort and we generally take the path of least resistance (except a lot of people around here who prefer "photography through pain" with hand-held meters, shooting with heavy clunks of chrome, manual everything, developing you own negatives, making prints and/or scanning...). It takes time/effort already to pick out the best photos with digital still cameras. Who wants to sit there and sift through minutes/hours of video - a tedious laborious task (ask any editor of a documentary shot on video with hundreds of hours of video to sift through) to pick out the bestus frame? Answer: Nobody.

Most modern cameras have burst modes. Nobody shoots in "burst mode" all the time. I rarely use it, but glad I have it as a feature when it's needed. It comes in handy on occasion. But then I have to sift through 6,7,12 slightly different frames... a true annoyance.

No worries about sifting through 100's of video frames to pick out the best one. Never happen. Too annoying to do, involves too much concentration, time, and effort.
 
NickTrop said:
I think these fears of picking the best frame out of a video steam and "ruining photography" are unfounded, and a logically fallacious "slippery slope" argument. There's a simple reason. To do this requires time and effort and we generally take the path of least resistance (except a lot of people around here who prefer "photography through pain" with hand-held meters, shooting with heavy clunks of chrome, manual everything, developing you own negatives, making prints and/or scanning...). It takes time/effort already to pick out the best photos with digital still cameras. Who wants to sit there and sift through minutes/hours of video - a tedious laborious task (ask any editor of a documentary shot on video with hundreds of hours of video to sift through) to pick out the bestus frame? Answer: Nobody.

Most modern cameras have burst modes. Nobody shoots in "burst mode" all the time. I rarely use it, but glad I have it as a feature when it's needed. It comes in handy on occasion. But then I have to sift through 6,7,12 slightly different frames... a true annoyance.

No worries about sifting through 100's of video frames to pick out the best one. Never happen. Too annoying to do, involves too much concentration, time, and effort.
Click to expand...

While I can agree with your perspective (less work as possible, save energy too) Technology will put on the market exactly that... just shoot and do whatever you want with the frames... (or not...)
My inner question is: can a "frame" be considered a "photo"? (not trying to change the threat Shadow, really)
 
@migtex. Cameras are already technologically capable of this, have been for a long time - and it hasn't been marketed this way (shoot a stream, pick out a frame). You're not thinking like a "regular" consumer. Pictures are shared on-line. Prints are a rarity. For online display any camcorder has more than enough pixels/resolution for something like this. It you're going to take a video stream, you'll just post the whole thing to Youtube, not sit there and pick out a single "best frame", which requires way too much time, effort, and concentration. This argument in its entirety falls/fails under "slippery slope".
 
NickTrop said:
@migtex. Cameras are already technologically capable of this, have been for a long time - and it hasn't been marketed this way (shoot a stream, pick out a frame). You're not thinking like a "regular" consumer. Pictures are shared on-line. Prints are a rarity. For online display any camcorder has more than enough pixels/resolution for something like this. It you're going to take a video stream, you'll just post the whole thing to Youtube, not sit there and pick out a single "best frame", which requires way too much time, effort, and concentration. This argument in its entirety falls/fails under "slippery slope".
Click to expand...

Ok then, I went for the Banana Split!
True, probably not a regular consumer.
 
This won't happen. The only decent images will still be those timed to perfection, or framed carefully by a still photographer. None of the Gallery Picks of this week would ever exist as a frame on a continuous strip of thousands of images. Those with an interest in producing single images, experienced people like on this forum and talented kids like my daughter, will have outputs that will keep still photography as we know it as the only and obvious source of worthwhile single images, and anyone with a child will know it.
 
One pocket of my Billingham carries my M7 and another pocket carries a very small JVC digital video recorder. Different tools for diff situations.
 
Losing touch with our sanity is more like it. The amount of money some people spend on the hobby of photography nowadays is frankly insane when considered objectively, especially when the results delivered are taken into account. I don't know if the internet is entirely to blame, but back in the day I don't remember too many amateur photographers buying, say, Nikon F3's for family snaps. Nowadays it's entirely common to see people spending used-car money for professional cameras for that very purpose convinced, evidently, by internet research that ownership of said camera is absolutely vital. More shocking still, on other forums I've seen people posting family snaps shot with a Leica S2 that bring the insanity to a whole 'nother level. :eek:
 
Well, I'm not. How about you?

(starknaked Brian shoutin from the window: You must think for yourselves! Crowd answers: yes, we must think for ourselves!)

:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom