Are we losing touch with photography?
- Thread starter shadowfox
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 55
- Views 5K
LKeithR
Improving daily--I think.
I tend to agree with this analysis. The technology is already good enough--especially for internet use--for users to be able to pick single frames out of a group but I don't see it happening a lot; at least if it does we don't hear about it. I think commercial interests--especially the news media--may make more use of it, simply because there's money to be made from getting the "right" shot.
On the other hand, artistic/creative shooters--like, I suspect, most of the visitors to this site--will continue with single frame photography for a long time to come. Heck, many of us are happy shooting 50 year old film cameras in an era when digital has supposedly taken over. And, last I heard, worldwide film sales are up which means that some younger people must be getting into film in spite of the digital revolution. I think we should remember that while the results might be the same--between selected video and single frame--the "experience" of capturing the shot will be very different. For many of us photography is like hunting; we stalk our subjects while staying aware of our surroundings and current conditions and wait for the "decisive moment" to make the capture. This in itself is one of the main reasons why still photography will continue to exist. I mean, where's the fun in capturing the perfect shot if you don't even know you've got it till you're home in front of your computer? There's something about setting up for a shot and knowing that you "nailed it" the moment you pressed the shutter that will ensure the mystique of still photography endures...
NickTrop
Veteran
I think cameras fall under the "affordable luxury" marketing motif used by "Hagen Dazs" ice cream, imported beers, cigars, higher end wines etc. Yeah - it's more expensive than what I usually buy but I can "treat myself" to a $6.00 pint of ice cream or a $15 dollar cigar once in a while - won't break the bank... Can you afford the nicest car on the block? No? Biggest house? No? But I can scrape up a couple grand for the coolest camera on the block that folks "ohh and ahhh" over, or more than likely charge it...
Brian Legge
Veteran
I'm about to start shooting 4x5 for the first time. Hopefully within a few weeks, I'll have a darkroom set up and will be making prints again for the first time in over a decade.
Can I opt out of the 'we' in this thread? 😉
Can I opt out of the 'we' in this thread? 😉
GSNfan
Well-known
I'm a fan of movies with great cinematography. In fact the art of cinematography has always been a step ahead of still photography imo. Watching some movies made in 1920s its amazing how each frame from them could be a great single photo. Then there are iconic movies like Citizen Kane which I need not elaborate on. Even when it came to color, the movies were far ahead and still are. Film cinematography is staged, but even then, the imagination and skill required to stage such scenery is in itself art... I recently watched The White Ribbon, this movie was shot in color but turned into b&w. The movie itself was great, but the cinematography was outstanding... Moving pictures is itself an art form. There is no need to slice them for still photos. It would be absurd for example to slice Citizen Kane into frames and make a photo book out of it.
Last edited:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
igi
Well-known
Sifting through images from a video isn't tedious... it's BORING!
Now if could have an AI to automatically choose a picture based on facial recognition, rule of thirds, perfect histogram curves etc. then that will definitely disconnect the masses from their cameras 😀
Now if could have an AI to automatically choose a picture based on facial recognition, rule of thirds, perfect histogram curves etc. then that will definitely disconnect the masses from their cameras 😀
Brian Legge
Veteran
igi, don't say things that that. It makes me want to start playing with it. 😛
_goodtimez
Well-known
Will, I concur with your statement.
I personally know poeple (some my relatives) who go out one day in an animal park with a 5D and come back with 1000 + pictures, only to decide after days of sorting that just 1 picture is to be kept.
However I am confident that there is a growing youth for which photography is the new Art and those youngsters will represent our future.
I personally know poeple (some my relatives) who go out one day in an animal park with a 5D and come back with 1000 + pictures, only to decide after days of sorting that just 1 picture is to be kept.
However I am confident that there is a growing youth for which photography is the new Art and those youngsters will represent our future.
RayPA
Ignore It (It'll go away)
A couple of years ago I was shooting my son's weekend baseball game with my Nikon DSLR and an 80-200/2.8 lens. As usual, I was just trying to get some good action shots. I was in the outfield (9 and 10-year old game) and another parent was out there with me. He had a brand new consumer-grade HD camcorder. I assumed he was just doing the 'fatherly' thing by recording every_single_minute_of_the_game.
By the middle of the following week, he had posted action shots of every kid on the team. He did this for every game. At the end of the year he had compiled a DVD for each player on the team.
The quality of the images was pretty good. It wasn't the same as I was getting with the Nikon, but it didn't need to be. Obviously his success rate for getting peak action shots was much better than all the other parents with DSLRs and long lenses. I thought it would have been very tedious to sort through a video and snapping frames, but when I asked him about it, he said it was actually very easy to do. He would just fast forward to peak action and jog around it until he found the best frame to snap.
I've shot for youth sports teams before using my DSLR. It's a lot of work. If I were to do it again, I would give this method some serious consideration.
I don't think we'll have the same concept of 'camera' 15-20 years down the road.
/
By the middle of the following week, he had posted action shots of every kid on the team. He did this for every game. At the end of the year he had compiled a DVD for each player on the team.
The quality of the images was pretty good. It wasn't the same as I was getting with the Nikon, but it didn't need to be. Obviously his success rate for getting peak action shots was much better than all the other parents with DSLRs and long lenses. I thought it would have been very tedious to sort through a video and snapping frames, but when I asked him about it, he said it was actually very easy to do. He would just fast forward to peak action and jog around it until he found the best frame to snap.
I've shot for youth sports teams before using my DSLR. It's a lot of work. If I were to do it again, I would give this method some serious consideration.
I don't think we'll have the same concept of 'camera' 15-20 years down the road.
/
lilmsmaggie
Established
I certainly hope not. I'm inclined to believe that film and film cameras will be around a lot longer than any of us might be inclined to believe.
Case in point: Last year, I dusted off my Minolta X-700, and enrolled in a film class at a local community college. First day of class was standing room only. Students were still trying to add the class a week later. As an ol' fart, I was amazed at these kids enthusiam in learning traditional photography not to mention their talent.
I have a tendency to believe that after one has been bitten by the digital bug, traditional film photography's siren call still beckons. There's been a resurgence in learning Alternative Processes e.g., Van Dyke, Cyanotype, Platinum/Paladium and Carbon Printing, just to name a few. Professional photographers such as John Sexton's traditional B&W printing classes fill faster than you can say "f64."
On a personal note, after taking the above mentioned class, I augmented my photography toolbox with a new Chamonix 45n-2 4x5, and several lenses.
It's amazing how many people both amatuer and professional that still shoot film.
Web sites such as this, APUG and Large Format Photography are a testiment to films staying power. At the rate that Kodak and Fujifilm discontinue film emulsions you would think film would be dead - but thank god for Iilford!
BTW - My Canon EOS 40D after losing 85% of its original purchase price sits in the closet in mint condition.
Last edited:
sebastel
coarse art umbrascriptor
...or high def videos of their dogs...
Leigh Youdale
Well-known
Well, I think that phone cameras will get better (and good enough) that every kid will use their phone and the market for P&S will shrink in direct proportion to the improvement in phone camera technology. Let's face it - most of the photos displayed on Flickr or other social networking sites don't need anything better than an iPhone camera. The computer display you view them on doesn't really show the higher definition of a "better" camera.
I also think that there's a market layer below that which isn't really into video as such but favours the "movie clip" approach so that they can put them up on YouTube or show their friends. They're not into a polished production but like the movement and action a short video clip can show. A bit like any commercial television current affairs program or news hour with their "sound bites" or video clips. I'm also seeing a lot of tourists aiming video cams at anything and everything these days. As if vacation slide nights weren't agonising enough!
Some of this middle group will rely on their phones but many others will use a DSLR of some kind or similar that will do these short clips or even take single frames. We have those cameras available now of course.
There will be some who want longer movies (typically parents and grandparents at weddings, christenings and children's birthdays), and they'll go for the handheld video cameras but they won't be as mainstream as the DSLR-types, and finally there will be the hobbyists and enthusiasts who keep a small niche market for still cameras going and a smaller subset of that who continue to use film.
Professionals will use whatever the client will accept and that gets the job, and that includes speed of delivery as a significant element.
I also think that there's a market layer below that which isn't really into video as such but favours the "movie clip" approach so that they can put them up on YouTube or show their friends. They're not into a polished production but like the movement and action a short video clip can show. A bit like any commercial television current affairs program or news hour with their "sound bites" or video clips. I'm also seeing a lot of tourists aiming video cams at anything and everything these days. As if vacation slide nights weren't agonising enough!
Some of this middle group will rely on their phones but many others will use a DSLR of some kind or similar that will do these short clips or even take single frames. We have those cameras available now of course.
There will be some who want longer movies (typically parents and grandparents at weddings, christenings and children's birthdays), and they'll go for the handheld video cameras but they won't be as mainstream as the DSLR-types, and finally there will be the hobbyists and enthusiasts who keep a small niche market for still cameras going and a smaller subset of that who continue to use film.
Professionals will use whatever the client will accept and that gets the job, and that includes speed of delivery as a significant element.
hawkeye
steve
I'd like to suggest that a good book that relates to this topic. It Alain de Botton's "Status Anxiety." In it he talks about the need people have to be known, to be seen, to matter to others. And how this anxiety drives most people. Is it possible that with the ease of taking snapshots with digital cameras and putting them online, or the ease of taking a frame out of a video, is not a reflection of this need? On so many of those sites the images are really bad but people are always complementary and take notice of the poster.
And isn't part of the discussion that those of us on Rangefinderforum see photography as an expressive medium with which we interact with the world rather than solely a way to draw attention to ourselves?
And isn't part of the discussion that those of us on Rangefinderforum see photography as an expressive medium with which we interact with the world rather than solely a way to draw attention to ourselves?
jsrockit
Moderator
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.
jsrockit
Moderator
Well, for some people, spending $40,000 on a camera is like me spending $100 on a dinner for 2... or maybe even $2.00 on a hot dog in the street. Some people are just paid and if they want to spend that cash on a S2 for family photos, then why not?
She's done quite well with family photos:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally_Mann
kbg32
neo-romanticist
Not everyone with a camera is a photographer, but everyone with a cell phone camera is.
This has pretty much dampened the industry.
This has pretty much dampened the industry.
jwc57
Well-known
This transition has pretty much began already. In 2009, Vogue's cover shot was from a video camera and several other magazines have since followed suit. For portrait sessions, I see this as a viable alternative to still photography.
"Machine gunning" is popular among younger still photographers and DSLRs. I complimented someone about his ability to capture birds in flight. He "bragged" that he shot in burst mode and would go through hundreds of shots to find the right one. I pretty much copped an attitude about the ability to be patient and capture the moment just as it happened. He said there was no need, just hold the shutter down and go for it.
"Machine gunning" is popular among younger still photographers and DSLRs. I complimented someone about his ability to capture birds in flight. He "bragged" that he shot in burst mode and would go through hundreds of shots to find the right one. I pretty much copped an attitude about the ability to be patient and capture the moment just as it happened. He said there was no need, just hold the shutter down and go for it.
NLewis
Established
There you have it I think. It takes effort to sort through video for stills. Only a few people will do it. For those few that do, 60fps won't be that much different than 10fps on your Sony A55.
On the other hand, I hope the mass availability of high-quality video (soon to migrate away from still cameras) will inspire a few kids to make real movies. Making movies -- as opposed to just pointing a FLIP camera -- also takes real work.
Richard G
Veteran
There are two quotes that RFFers have in their signatures that are germane to this discussion: "Print 'em both kid."- a seasoned news photographer who did not need the full 36 frames available with his new 35mm camera, and a quote form Giacometti:
"Basically, I no longer work for anything but the sensation I have while working." We might think of this in photography as the sensation of being out with the camera, making decisions and later seeing the results, but the guy who is happy to sit through a few thousand video frames to pick the images worth printing as singles is a bit like a sculptor and maybe that's the work he enjoys. Meanwhile, weddings and other time critical events are not going to see this volume approach prove successful very often, if at all. And with portraits, the interaction, the lack of intrusion of the camera...all are going to favour the experienced photographer who can take one or two shots when that's all he or she is going to get. My 17 year old daughter loves her camera phones in the three phones she has had so far, and some of the shots leave me speechless, but she also loves her new Panasonic TZ7 and also her old film SLR.
"Basically, I no longer work for anything but the sensation I have while working." We might think of this in photography as the sensation of being out with the camera, making decisions and later seeing the results, but the guy who is happy to sit through a few thousand video frames to pick the images worth printing as singles is a bit like a sculptor and maybe that's the work he enjoys. Meanwhile, weddings and other time critical events are not going to see this volume approach prove successful very often, if at all. And with portraits, the interaction, the lack of intrusion of the camera...all are going to favour the experienced photographer who can take one or two shots when that's all he or she is going to get. My 17 year old daughter loves her camera phones in the three phones she has had so far, and some of the shots leave me speechless, but she also loves her new Panasonic TZ7 and also her old film SLR.
