Videographer to replace Photog?

MichaelHenson · Jan 28, 2015

So, read an interesting paragraph the other by a guy saying that the future doesn't look all that great for photographers due to the ability we now have (to an extent...the premise is that this ability will improve with technology) to pull a specific from from a video and use it just like a still image.

I don't necessarily agree but I thought that it would be something interesting to discuss here.

Thoughts?

Buckster · Jan 28, 2015

The problem is picking out that one specific frame from X-thousand frames of video to then process. It's tough enough for most photographers to choose between the few frames they shoot now, finding the one with the very best clarity, DOF, pose, etc., to then process for the final prints.

Pro photographers have plenty of concerns about trying to make a career in this field going forward, but I don't think video frames is really one worth considering. It's definitely not something I'm ever going to worry about.

dennybeall · Jan 30, 2015

Folks with top end cameras come pretty close right now shooting 6 to 10 frames per second to capture just the right shot.

qleak · Jan 30, 2015

The tradeoff is frame rate for image quality. Running a sensor in video mode is noisier due to the higher heat, but if you don't have a mechanical shutter, frame rate can get very high.

bribrius · Jan 30, 2015

i agree. video is the evolution of photography . still frame is virtually outdated. We all do it, but the technology has moved way beyond. Video is becoming and has been the preferable method for many things since they came out with vhs cassette and has only increased. It would only make sense to shoot video and subtract whatever still images you want from it. i know a lot of photographers are unwilling to jump on the video bandwagon. But many of them will need to or they are going to be out of a job. The request is becoming for stills and video, not just stills. And we will get to the point the stills are taken from the video.

More to the point:There is a reason your dslr does video, and they keep trying to make the video better... DoH!!!!!!

runnah · Jan 30, 2015

the only way this is practical is for sports. Things like fashion, portraits and landscapes all would be silly to just sit there and shoot video and pull a screen grab.

Not to mention all the tricks you can do with photos that you can replicate with video.

rexbobcat · Jan 31, 2015

For some applications it can work, but there are so many work-arounds - both technical and technological - that it would be highly impractical for the most part.

Plus any resolution that would be printable (4K+) is still out of the range of most people, so it'll be a while before it makes anything obsolete.

Buckster · Jan 31, 2015

bribrius said:
still frame is virtually outdated.

Riiiiiiiiight....

bribrius said:
i know a lot of photographers are unwilling to jump on the video bandwagon. But many of them will need to or they are going to be out of a job.

How long do you give still photographers, before they're out of a job because of this? 6 months? A year? 2 years? Take a guess.

photoguy99 · Jan 31, 2015

Photography all about picking frames. Video just delays the job until it's too late to move the camera.

runnah · Jan 31, 2015

photoguy99 said:
Photography all about picking frames. Video just delays the job until it's too late to move the camera.

What?

runnah · Jan 31, 2015

I can see by this thread that no one has spent any real time shooting video so...

photoguy99 · Jan 31, 2015

I don't actually know how to say it more clearly.

runnah · Jan 31, 2015

photoguy99 said:
I don't actually know how to say it more clearly.

Then all hope is lost.

Video and photos are two different mediums with two different goals. Sure they both require a camera but really that is where the similarities end.

photoguy99 · Jan 31, 2015

Oh in that case I can clarify, now that I see your point of confusion.

Trying to do still photography with a video camera merely delays the work of picking a frame until inconveniently late in the process.

MichaelHenson · Feb 2, 2015

I agree that I don't see photography being replaced by video frame grabs, it was just an interesting thought and I've seen instances where it's a cool idea. Shooting action sports, events, etc. It definitely seems like video might be the wave of the future...basically instances where you are limited in your ability to control the situation.

For instance, I just took some photos at a charity event last week. Now, I'm not an event photographer and haven't done it enough to be jaded to the point where I'm comfortable invading people's space and conversations with the pop of a flash...and I'm not sure that's the right way to approach it if I were. However, I can see where using a small unobtrusive video camera (ahem, GoPro?) would allow me to capture images in a much different manner. Basically, I would have been able to make occasional passes around the room with the camera recording and then take the screen grabs I would like later. Might be an interesting option to be explored in the future.

But, in situations where photographers do have control, I can't see video replacing still shots. There are too many nuances, tricks, etc. that photography enables us to use that I can't see that aspect of things being replaced.