zerobuttons
Well-known
I do recognize that "when to press that shutter" is most often a concept more complex than that, but it seems to me that burst exposure is the only way both pure amateurs and a great deal of semi-professionals are able to work today. Two examples:
1) A few years back, when I often shot at motorcycle-race events, every other photographer I met at the tracks was shooting bursts. It took me two days to learn how to compose my body and camera and how to use the DSLR´s facilities optimally. That way I could follow a single driver of group and press the shutter at the right moment. No other photographer I met bothered to learn these skills.
2) Recently, when visiting the Colosseum in Rome, Italy, there were quite a lot of Chinese tourists. A group of them all had DSLRs, and took turns to do insane poses in front of views from the seat rows, while all the others were photographing with all their cameras set to burst exposure.
These are just examples. It seems to me that every aspiring photographer today has seen to many press-conferences on TV, hearing that "click-click-click" from all the photographers´ cameras, leading them to believe that this is how it´s done.
Chris C
Established
This is in the future for photography, but it's not the future.
_larky
Well-known
Burst mode should be removed from all cameras. Watch Nachtwey at work, he waits and clicks.
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
Well, for many pros, it's the money shot that counts. And a 1DmkIV shooting every play in a pro football game at 10fps will definitely get the shot. Seems to me 96fps is just the next step up.
Back in the film days, Walter Iooss got all those great sports photos in SI shooting special high speed Canons that shot 15fps. With film!
Back in the film days, Walter Iooss got all those great sports photos in SI shooting special high speed Canons that shot 15fps. With film!
NLewis
Established
Better, cheaper, faster. That's the end result of new technology and technique.
As for stills, it is hard to imagine that they could be much better. Cheaper and faster has mostly been accomplished already, the digital revolution. Sports Illustrated isn't going to sell any more magazines because of some inifinitessimal improvement in its images, from today's already very high standard. However, the tiny improvement might be just enough that one photographer gets the job instead of another.
Pros may be dismayed to find that a newbie amateur with a 96fps camera can "get the shot" without much difficulty if they are willing to spend the time picking it out in post.
The big advance, as I see it, is in movie making. It would be wonderful to see lots of movies being made on low budgets. However, good quality video cameras have been around for a while now, and where are all these great low-budget movies? I see a lot of stupid dog tricks on YouTube. Maybe I just don't know where to look.
Along those lines, there is a crossover element: this week's magazine ad shoot becomes next week's Fashion TV program. With 125 channels on cable, there's a lot of air time to fill.
The more I think about it, the commercial photography business stinks. It feeds newspapers and magazines, and advertisements in newspapers and magazines, two dwindling industries. You don't see a lot of still advertising on the Internet. Yes, there's a banner ad but nothing of the sort that you'd see for a perfume ad in Vogue.
The real "future of photography" question is: What is it for? Mostly, as I see it, it is about fine art and a hobby. The hobby side seems more active than ever.
As for stills, it is hard to imagine that they could be much better. Cheaper and faster has mostly been accomplished already, the digital revolution. Sports Illustrated isn't going to sell any more magazines because of some inifinitessimal improvement in its images, from today's already very high standard. However, the tiny improvement might be just enough that one photographer gets the job instead of another.
Pros may be dismayed to find that a newbie amateur with a 96fps camera can "get the shot" without much difficulty if they are willing to spend the time picking it out in post.
The big advance, as I see it, is in movie making. It would be wonderful to see lots of movies being made on low budgets. However, good quality video cameras have been around for a while now, and where are all these great low-budget movies? I see a lot of stupid dog tricks on YouTube. Maybe I just don't know where to look.
Along those lines, there is a crossover element: this week's magazine ad shoot becomes next week's Fashion TV program. With 125 channels on cable, there's a lot of air time to fill.
The more I think about it, the commercial photography business stinks. It feeds newspapers and magazines, and advertisements in newspapers and magazines, two dwindling industries. You don't see a lot of still advertising on the Internet. Yes, there's a banner ad but nothing of the sort that you'd see for a perfume ad in Vogue.
The real "future of photography" question is: What is it for? Mostly, as I see it, it is about fine art and a hobby. The hobby side seems more active than ever.
Ebay...
http://cgi.ebay.com/Casio-EXILIM-Pr...548117?pt=Digital_Cameras&hash=item35b2f32dd5
Most look like they remained in Japan.
High-Speed cameras have been around for quite a while. Digital makes the use of high-frame rates cheaper. The time spent editing to find "the perfect shot" has a high cost in today's most limited resource- time to do anything. Perhaps that's the biggest convenience of using a Digital manual-focus camera with a slow frame rate.
Last edited:
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
I don't know, Brian. I'm afraid even the current race to upload photos to facebook will burn out in a couple of years. After you've uploaded the billionth Iphone photo of your friends puking after a night of boozing, it's gotta lose its thrill! 
Seriously, it's hard to imagine the trajectory of photography even five years from now.
Seriously, it's hard to imagine the trajectory of photography even five years from now.
tlitody
Well-known
Can it bracket and do the zone system?
tlitody
Well-known
People still ride horses.
daninjc
Well-known
user237428934
User deletion pending
I think this IS the future for news films and photography. The demand for film footage is going up and if you can get a good quality teaser photo out of the film then you only need one device.
btgc
Veteran
Professional and hobby photography are as different as preprocessed and frozen foods vs home made food (I'm not talking about those who cook at home in microwave owen, sure ). They pursue different goals, one is for money and another - for pleasure and delight. I don't think anyone in good health can mix this things.
). They pursue different goals, one is for money and another - for pleasure and delight. I don't think anyone in good health can mix this things.Tin
Well-known
No, there is no need to do that. Just apply the HCB filter in Photoshop V. 100 and you'll get those images with one click of the mouse!
I use the EP2 more for video than stills.
If the people that buy these fast cameras have kids, they will not want the movies converted to Stills.
If the people that buy these fast cameras have kids, they will not want the movies converted to Stills.
bukaj
Established
I found this quote very telling. Applies to what has been discussed here, and why this technology is coming.
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
It has been perfectly possible for quite a few years - not only in theory, but in practice. Photographers have been shooting alongside of HD video camera teams at most major press-covered events since the mid 2000's, and HD video is well above newsprint or web specifications.
But editing through such a vast amount of material is only worth while if the video can be sold as a video as well. At which point you increase staff cost (you will need an audio engineer to point the microphone at something meaningful, the silent movie genre being dead for ages), lose mobility (there is not that much news coverage that you can do entirely without a tripod), and start to get involved with on-image location reporters as soon as you get a little more in-depth than delivering mere ten second newsbites - reducing your audience massively, as marketing psychology dictates that your talking head will be only good for one single major customer (where your photograph and written text could be sold anywhere internationally).
Besides, there are differences between a moving and a still image, that aren't that easily consolidated - motion picture studios have always been employing still photographers alongside the cinematographers, even though the resolution delivered would have been more than adequate for most purposes .
Last edited:
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
That's it. Well stated.
I posed this exact scenario as a question some time ago:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=573229
I think photography will cease to be the way to accomplish certain things in the future. But there will always be a place for hanging a print or two in our houses. And people still cherish memories in 2D flat surfaces, even today in this 3D crazed world.
Colin Corneau
Colin Corneau
The future isn't always exactly as advertised. I remember when video was supposed to save newspapers (as opposed to newspaper owners, you know...actually evolving with the times and spending a few shekels to do it, but I digress) and while it is being done, it isn't the saviour it was hyped to be.
Video requires staff, training, and capital expenses; the news outlets that succeed with it in future will be the ones who take it seriously and spend accordingly.
This technology has promise but it will find its own niche, just like video and all the other hot new ideas.
The point about executives and bean counters driving the decision making is the take-away in this whole thread; what's good for their agenda is what will be pushed on consumers.
Video requires staff, training, and capital expenses; the news outlets that succeed with it in future will be the ones who take it seriously and spend accordingly.
This technology has promise but it will find its own niche, just like video and all the other hot new ideas.
The point about executives and bean counters driving the decision making is the take-away in this whole thread; what's good for their agenda is what will be pushed on consumers.
dave lackey
Veteran
Well, I got down as far as the YouTube comment... Anyone thinking that the very poor videos on YouTube (especially those that get 2 megatrixillion of a singing cat or something) is even close to competing with professional photography doesn't deserve my time to read the rest.
I am set for life with my digital and my film equipment. I posted a thread before how I plan on sticking with film for life and that is still do-able. I hate shooting video so that is not an issue for me, it is a non-issue.
Quite happy to spend the rest of my life trying to better myself with the gear I have, thank you.:angel:
Ade-oh
Well-known
It may well indicate the route that much news photography will go down but there are already myriad branches of photography and they are dividing and spreading out all the time. Predicting the future is a futile exercise for the most part, but we all love to do it so here are a few guesses:
In five years time, news pros will not be using cameras designed to look and handle like 35mm film SLRs.
The market for digital consumer cameras will dip sharply as cell-phone cameras continue to improve.
Film hobbyists will continue to be able to obtain 35mm, medium and large format film for the foreseeable future, albeit in a dwindling variety.
In five years time, news pros will not be using cameras designed to look and handle like 35mm film SLRs.
The market for digital consumer cameras will dip sharply as cell-phone cameras continue to improve.
Film hobbyists will continue to be able to obtain 35mm, medium and large format film for the foreseeable future, albeit in a dwindling variety.