Taking away luck in street photography ?

[katrak]

[I'm not sure if this is the right forum, so please move if not]

I have spent the last few days using a Panasonic GH4.

This camera allows you to shoot video at 4k, [which equates to 24 x 8mp files a second, any of which you can extract from the video feed], so a 40 minute walk down your high street with indiscriminate shooting could give you up to c. 72,000 frames to choose from.

Cameras like this could herald a new era in documentary / street photography (although not necessarily for the better).

With more discriminate use, this technology could dramatically increase the yield of quality street photography - no more closed eyes..catching that decisive moment etc. The quality is also only going to get better with time.

I've written more at http://picabroad.com/panasonic-gh4-the-dawn-of-a-new-era-for-street-photography/ and will update this page as I get used to this very new and exciting technology.

Oh...and it's an excellent stills camera as well !

Below are a few examples of the video grabs from the camera and a couple of full sized jpegs are on the website.

 

[Austintatious]

This looks promising. Love to see more !

 

[jsrockit]

It's a different mindset and people will react differently to one constantly rolling video and someone quickly bringing a camera to their eye for a second or two. It's interesting, but there still is room for traditional photo capture.

 

[NY_Dan]

This technology will not herald a new era of street photography because there is more to the art form then simply putting a photo device on record. OP has shown a few "grabs." Go out for 5 hours, and show us one great shot, or 2 excellent shots, or 5 good shots. As a photographer who shoots digital and film, there is something about martial art like about making each shot on a 12-exposure roll count.

 

[Paul Jenkin]

Seriously..............who's got time to pull a shot (or even a few shots) from 72,000?? I have a hard enough time sorting a few from a roll of 36.

Much as I enjoy using my digital cameras, the more gizmos they include, the less attracted to them I become. I've never used or wanted a video camera and spending hours sifting thorugh hundred or thousands of similar (or almost identical) photos is anathema to me.

The technology is fantastic and it's interesting but I'm quite happy with one shot at a time. I'd much rather be a sniper than a machine-gunner.

 

[bobbyrab]

I think the point is being missed, yes you as an individual may well prefer to develop the skill of capturing the single image and draw satisfaction from the idea of it, but if the technology develops so you can pull the same quality of image from a video stream then it is a game changer.
Will the viewer of a great photograph know or care if it's a single capture or pulled from a video stream. It will be interesting to see how these developing technologies are adopted by working professionals. I can't see how being able to pull the optimum single image from a video feed could be bettered by the same operator using a conventional camera, and a good photographer would quickly home in on the worthwhile frames to choose from, you wouldn't be editing 75000 frames.
Like the diffrence from fly fishing to going to sea in a trawler.

 

[jsrockit]

As a photographer who shoots digital and film, there is something about martial art like about making each shot on a 12-exposure roll count.

Conversely though, there are not any stats connected to photography either... museums, magazines, galleries, etc don't put info like "it took 127 shots to make this photo, therefore it is inferior" or "this fine photo was made using one frame of 35mm film."

 

[telenous]

Video does not solve the fundamental photographic problem, which is this: what is it that is worth photographing? Sure, use video and you may end up with a lucky shot now and then. (A couple of people have shown this to be possible, using the vast resources of Google street view.) But don't think indiscriminate shooting will be less work. Editing in particular will be a new form of torture.

If you know what you're after, a few shots will be as good as 72,000 frames. And if you don't, 7,200,000 will not be enough.

.

 

[Pherdinand]

i think it will lead to further dilution of the "artist" image of the street photographer.
It's already diluted in general about photographer - with today's access to digital cameras of extreme high picture quality by the push of a button, "everybody's a photo artist" i.e. the signal disappears in the noise
this trend will just continue, there'll be plenty browsing thorugh those 72 thousand frames to put the most perfect (boring) in front as "street photography art" by that changing the standards and the perception of the large public on what it "should" look like and shifting focus to technically perfect frames...
A bit like it happened with horror/action movies, from the black and white hitchcock movies to the 3D special-effect-after-special-effect, multi surround standard of today which is almost a requirement for a succesful movie and this leaves no time for character development nor needs any intellectual contribution from the viewer himself.

 

[rbsinto]

I enjoy looking at other people's street photographs, but the ones that are most important to me are the one's I take.
And this latest of the "solutions to non-existent problems" that we are bombarded with literally every day by the makers of electronic "devices" will not make any difference in my life.
I'll just continue to take photos with my laughably outdated, hopelessly primitive manual focus film cameras from the previous century, as I've been doing reasonably well for the last 37 years.

 

[zauhar]

This technology will not herald a new era of street photography because there is more to the art form then simply putting a photo device on record. OP has shown a few "grabs." Go out for 5 hours, and show us one great shot, or 2 excellent shots, or 5 good shots. As a photographer who shoots digital and film, there is something about martial art like about making each shot on a 12-exposure roll count.

Actually, I think OP's #1 is a really excellent image - but I completely agree with your position. I am always cognizant of how many shots are left, and always mindful to connect better with the subject and not waste them. If I was basically an editor looking through hours of footage for the 'magic moments', where would I be in the process? I might as well station some hidden cameras on the street.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

New camera excitement
First b/w panorama is good one.

But how boring and time consuming it is to shovel through 72K of frames to find one which is takeible as single shot anyway. Worst than spray shooting. Could you tag, mark in/out instantly while going on this "surveillance" mode around streets corners?

 

[v_roma]

Leaving aside the mindset difference and any personal issues one might have with this technique, I agree that this will not solve some of the fundamental problems with street photography as others have mentioned: what do I photograph, how do I frame it, how do I take a photo that is impactful, etc.

 

[bobbyrab]

Ok say your favourite photographer sees something they think worthwhile photographing, their normal practise might be to take 3-4 frames then choose at the edit stage which to print, however the shot they like best compositionally, the subject has half blinked and looks odd.
If instead they see something worth photographing they shoot 5 seconds of video which gave them 400 frames, they then review the film in real time, and can identify the specific section they like best, so now they quickly narrow the selection down to the same composition as they had in the previous scenario, but a split second earlier without the blink. Is it now less of a photograph, and more importantly how would you know which scenario was used.

 

[bobbyrab]

Another thing, why are you all assuming hours of video being shot, this is video used by a photographer looking for single images, you choose what to photograph and how to compose in exactly the same way, you just take a burst of video instead of 1,2 or 3 shots.

 

[NY_Dan]

Holding this video camera to one's eye continuously and walking the streets negatively affects how subjects behave. It also requires the photographer to constantly operate the camera. This is a disadvantage because before one shoots one needs to observe. One could observe for hours without finding a shot worth taking. So far, OP has not shown a good street photo made from continuous capture. If one wants the in between shots they can use a camera with a motor drive. A short burst of five photos should accomplish this goal.

The primary benefit of high resolution video shooting is for when there are reasons for not having a separate still photographer. One shoots the video -- which is the main product, say at an event, and then later can pull printable frames for publication or in the case of a wedding, an album.

I've examined videos specifically looking for individual frames that would make a great still, and what I notice is that the strength of individual frames are significantly weaker than the product of a still shooter. The video on the surface looks great -- but it is the transition from frame to frame that makes this so. The approach is not equivalent. I put it to the OP, show me the money (shots)

 

[jsrockit]

You don't have to video for minutes... you could just take 2-3 second video clips of the same scene you'd photograph and effectively not change a scene since the camera would only be up to your eye for the same amount of time as a still photo. I'm not saying this is what i want to do, but to say this technology could not be used similarly to still photos is simply untrue.

 

[bobbyrab]

I've examined videos specifically looking for individual frames that would make a great still, and what I notice is that the strength of individual frames are significantly weaker than the product of a still shooter. The video on the surface looks great -- but it is the transition from frame to frame that makes this so. The approach is not equivalent. I put it to the OP, show me the money (shots)

This is everything to do with the technology and the quality of single frames pulled from video, but if that quality was indistinguishable from a stills camera how would you know how it was shot.

 

[craygc]

For effective images, the "pick a frame from a video stream" approach doesn't really work. At 24 frames a second at, for example, 1/125 exposure per frame you are actually only recording 20% of the time; at 1/250 it drops to less than 10%. Therefore, there is an extremely high probability that you don't actually capture the good parts...

This, as opposed to consciously shooting single frames where you anticipate the moment all the elements come together is going to be much more fruitful in delivering worthwhile results.

 

[v_roma]

In the hands of a good photographer, I don't see why this technique would not produce good photographs. You do lose one tool, which is control of the shutter speed. You are essentially always shooting at 1/24 (for cameras that shoot 24 frames per second). Not enough to freeze fast moving subjects. Though, of course, not every photo needs this.

Ok say your favourite photographer sees something they think worthwhile photographing, their normal practise might be to take 3-4 frames then choose at the edit stage which to print, however the shot they like best compositionally, the subject has half blinked and looks odd.
If instead they see something worth photographing they shoot 5 seconds of video which gave them 400 frames, they then review the film in real time, and can identify the specific section they like best, so now they quickly narrow the selection down to the same composition as they had in the previous scenario, but a split second earlier without the blink. Is it now less of a photograph, and more importantly how would you know which scenario was used.