The end of "Photography" as we know it?

[shadowfox]

Yesterday I was looking at the photos from the news covering of the French Open and the NBA Finals (for those of us in the US).

The quality of the photos are of course very good and striking. But ... they also reminds me of the Pause button on a DVD or Tivo. Albeit a *very* clean paused frame.

Many people have labeled digital shots to be "sterile" or "clean", but that's not wha't bothering me...

What *is* bothering me is where would photography be in 2-10 years from now?

It will only take one video-guy who brings this camera to a well-known venue (which I know will happen in the very near future): http://www.red.com (hint: Take a look at the Gallery section and see the stills produced from this movie camera... and you'd wish you're sitting down...)

Then "photography" will be reduced to sitting behind an editing workstation and *choosing* which video frame to be included in headlines... or exhibitions... or galleries... etc.

Why would anyone hire a photographer when a video-jockey can produce the same exact image?

I'm sure a lot of photographers who jumped ship to digital are wondering about this... what do you guys think?

 

[FrankS]

Folks didn't give up painting when photography was invented. I won't give up still photography once "video capture" becomes mainstream. For fast action sports for public consumption, video capture will be the best tool to capture that action. But I'm an old guy pointing my film RF at street scenes and old wooden fences and such. I've still got the best tool for me for that job.

 

[hitmanh]

The main drawback with video kit is the expense... the red camera is something like 17k without a lens...
I think there will always be a market for stills cameras, partly becuase the technology is cheaper (HD video needs huge amounts of bandwidth and heavy duty processing and getting raw images is even more intensive), and partly becuase most tools dedicated to one job are more efficient than those that do several.


Cheers

Matt

 

[SteveM(PA)]

a blitz of terrapixels at...whatever...yes, may yield a decisive moment or two...sometimes...but a good concept is still a good concept, needing only one frame.

 

[40oz]

this won't change photography as I know it. In fact, it will have zero effect.

 

[shadowfox]

Folks didn't give up painting when photography was invented. I won't give up still photography once "video capture" becomes mainstream. For fast action sports for public consumption, video capture will be the best tool to capture that action. But I'm an old guy pointing my film RF at street scenes and old wooden fences and such. I've still got the best tool for me for that job.

I agree with you, Frank... only from the perspective of people who enjoys photography like us. Me, for example, I enjoy taking pictures, I *do not* enjoy taking videos.

... but people like us *are* under the mercy of public/the masses' perception.

Once the technology caught up and one still-to-come video camera can produce a freeze-frame as good as what you see now on Sports pictures on CNN website, what would those guys with big huge Canon on the sideline do then? who would hire them?

... then manufacturers like Canon or Nikon would shift their attention to producing Video cams, no longer Still cams. *THAT* is what worries me.

 

[antiquark]

Some disconnected comments about that:

- Who has time to sift through 10,000 pictures to find the "best" one?

- Is it pocketable?

- Is it affordable?

- Not every photo is a high-speed action shot where 1/10th of a second will make or break the picture. Maybe the Red will be the end of sports photography as we know it. Don't think it will have much effect on landscapes, portraits, etc.

- How the heck do you archive that massive pile of data? It probably generates 1 CDROM's worth of data for every minute it runs.

- Supercamera or not, you still have to "be there" to get the shot.

 

[shadowfox]

a blitz of terrapixels at...whatever...yes, may yield a decisive moment or two...sometimes...but a good concept is still a good concept, needing only one frame.

Agreed, but once the results from the video camera can rival or excel still photography, all you need to do to capture that Decisive moment is point it in the general direction of things happening and hold a button for 5 minutes. Go home and you can *choose* your Decisive moment at your heart's content.

My question is: Is that what Photography will become in the coming years?

 

[shadowfox]

Some disconnected comments about that:

- Who has time to sift through 10,000 pictures to find the "best" one?

I suspect people *already* start to do this now. They will sure do it more once they can select any frame and it is as good as any still *digital* camera can produce.

Let me put it in perspective, in the future, which one is cheaper for broadcasting corporations to hire? a professional sports photographer or an intern kid who is paid by the hour who has all the time in world to choose a good frame from an hour of coverage?

 

[antiquark]

Maybe 10,000 pictures was too low. How about 30*60*60 = 108,000 pictures per hour, or 800,000 pictures after a hard day of work. It becomes video editing at that point, it's impossible to examine each picture.

<i>Let me put it in perspective, in the future, which one is cheaper for broadcasting corporations to hire? a professional sports photographer or an intern kid who is paid by the hour who has all the time in world to choose a good frame from an hour of coverage?</i>

But what if the intern kid happens to be standing in the wrong spot while filming a famous sports star, and it looks like a tree in the background is growing out of the sports star's head? No amount of frames per second will make that tree go away.

A silly example, but my point is that there is more to photography than shooting frames as quickly as possible.

 

[Tuolumne]

Some disconnected comments about that:

- Who has time to sift through 10,000 pictures to find the "best" one? [/quote]

In 10 years - anyone

- Is it pocketable?

In 10 years, yes

- Is it affordable?

In 10 years, yes

 

[sherm]

I suspect people *already* start to do this now. They will sure do it more once they can select any frame and it is as good as any still *digital* camera can produce.

Let me put it in perspective, in the future, which one is cheaper for broadcasting corporations to hire? a professional sports photographer or an intern kid who is paid by the hour who has all the time in world to choose a good frame from an hour of coverage?

Shadow,

I would ask yourself a couple of questions....... First, do you make your living as a sports photographer? If not, than why use that as your example? and secondly, why are you worried about this at all? Who knows what will happen in two or even ten years? You have the luxury of spare time on your hands to worry about this type of subject, that's not a negative thing mind you, but for me at least I'm more concerned about what fuel prices or taxes will be in two or ten years. Maybe that comes with age or family I don't know and this certainly isn't a knock on those that aren't married or have kids. This is strictly my experience.

The bottom line of my response is this.... try to live more in the moment, be grateful that you have the opportunity to use the equipment now, don't borrow trouble before it's even trouble. My suggestion would be, that if you have this much time on your hands go out and take more pictures.

Scott

 

[VinceC]

News and sports photography have been moving in this direction for years. You're really talking about a logical progression that starts with motor drives and 36-exposure rolls through today's rapid motordrives and multi-gigabyte cards.

Ten years ago I knew an AP photo editor (admittedly not someone I ever wanted to work for) whose heart raced at the idea that one day he would be able to send out a photographer with a video camera and, using cell phone and live video feedback, tell him where to point the camera while viewing and downloading what the camera saw. I've already seen photographers who use their digital SLRs to "spray" a scene, doing literally thousands of frames a day, then quickly sifting through them on a lap top.

The decisivie moment is excellent for those who are serious about their photography. But many of those making a living at photography are just too worried about missing any moment and so use the "Claymore mine" approach to their work.

A growing number of news photographers are anyway doing video for their employers'/clients' websites. Classic news photography is quickly evolving into becoming a multimedia practitioner.

 

[Kin Lau]

Don't worry about Canon and Nikon shifting to video.

The Pro SLR's do more than just shot 8-10fps. Focus speed (initial acquisition and follow AF) is very important.

 

[shutterfiend]

Assuming the primary action shots are derived from video, there is still the scope of capturing the guy in the stand picking his nose and scratching his... seat at the same time. It'll be a while before expensive video equipment is pointed up at stands for no reason.

 

[jan normandale]

I think there isn't enough time to do this and be competitive in the news marketplace. First to the street or across the line wins.

Digital cameras that upload to satellites will be the tool of choice. There are Asian 10.0 MP cell phones now in design mode. Selected images will be emailed to head office, the studio or presses and that is still the key for media.

here's a link http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/09/live-from-cebit-samsungs-sch-b600-10-megapixel-cameraphone/

To mangle Vince Lombardi... "timing isn't everything, it's the only thing"

 

[Edward Felcher]

It's great.

I would love to have one built-in to a cap on my head that takes perfect frames of EVERYTHING I ever see.

My whole life. Database and spool it all.

They've already experimented with this concept.

Rewind to any important event, study it, print it out, remember.


That hot girlfriend in bed, when you met your wife, an accident, u-name-it.

GREAT idea, wish we had the technology ready.

Save entire life-reels of the dead.

 

[jan normandale]

Edward Felcher... LaL! Yours might be the best post I've read in a year. Thanks.

 

[aad]

It's great.

I would love to have one built-in to a cap on my head that takes perfect frames of EVERYTHING I ever see.

My whole life. Database and spool it all.

They've already experimented with this concept.

Rewind to any important event, study it, print it out, remember.


That hot girlfriend in bed, when you met your wife, an accident, u-name-it.

GREAT idea, wish we had the technology ready.

Save entire life-reels of the dead.

Great post!

I wonder when folks decided their lives were so fascinating to everybody else?

 

[DavidH]

Why would anyone hire a photographer when a video-jockey can produce the same exact image?

With all due respect...and somewhat tongue in cheek...

Just try using a big HD video camera...with all the traditional compositional techniques, lighting etc but also all the essential skills and experience required to run a machine like this...

A modern digital slr is childs play in comparison. As well as being smaller, lighter, with greater versatility in positioning and angles. And a hell of a lot cheaper (my HD camera is $120,000 for a basic setup...RED has a cheaper base price but is useless without a lens and mounting system and power and vf etc etc so will end up in the same ballpark).

You could look at it from a different angle...the threat to the highly skilled cinematographer from slr jockeys who pick up a cheap digi from eprey... 😉

As for a young McOperator sat in a sideroom picking stills off a video feed...well you could do that now...HD 1080p is easily capable of providing excellent quality stills for the print news...

No offence intended...just a different point of view...