The end of still photography...

[ksmattfish]

This idea started in another thread, but I didn't want to hijack that one. What happens when motion photography technology catches up to still photography? I mean when you can take a single frame from a digital camcorder recording, and it's high enough resolution to make good enlargements from.

For news and sports photography wouldn't it make sense to just keep "filming", and pick out the best shots later? Most of the sports photogs are already armed with cameras that'll do 5+ fps. In the other thread I used the examples of vacation and family event photography (birthday parties, etc...) . A couple could shoot continuously during their entire Hawaian vacation, and then have a pro with a good eye sort out some stills for their scrap books.

I think this is the way a lot of photography is going to go when the technology allows us high resolution, effectively unlimited memory space, ultra-miniaturization, low light capabilities, and super long lasting batteries. Then the debate won't be film vs. digital, but about equipment choice none the less (still vs. motion gear).

In the year 2025, when Canon announces the 999D, I'll still be clunking along with my Rolleiflex, shooting at 1 frame per 5 or 10 seconds (or lots slower!), and waiting a week or two to see my photos. Luddites unite!

Edit: Now that I think about it, when I look at the old photo mags (from the 60s and 70s (I didn't get them new ldman: ) stacked by my toilet they cover both motion and still photography. So maybe it's just coming around again?

 

[santino]

that wouldn't be photography anymore, photography is capturing a moment, not selecting it from a 2 hour tape or whatever. there's no "romance" behind it, just nothing. I will still be using my Hasselblad + Praktica.

 

[KevinR]

When they pry my cold dead fingers off.............

Dammit Matt, don't give anybody more ideas.

Its funny that past and present photographers have fought for so long to be accepted into the high art arena, yet technology seems to knock that down. And no I'm not taking that big of a swipe at digital, but I'm talking about the perception that photography has gotten easier.

 

[Hertz van Rental]

I wouldn't worry about the current trend - people get bored quickly and will swap to the next fad to come along.
Stills and Motion have always co-existed happily. My Degree course was in Photography, Film and Television. The first year you did a bit of everything (I can still load an Arriflex and use a 3 bed Steenbeck) before specialising. It was recognised that the three disciplines shared the same fundamentals. Lighting, lenses, composition and so on. There was a great deal of mutual respect - talent shines through whatever medium you use - but we never let on: '24fps and you still can't take a decent photo' etc.
Wolf Suschitzky is a wonderful cinematographer and also an accomplished photographer http://www.zcgall.demon.co.uk/artists/suschitzky/suschitzky.html (and a very nice man into the bargain). I think he illustrates my view on the subject.
And don't forget - 35mm film was 'stolen' from the cinema for use in stills cameras.

 

[santino]

Ariflex, great cameras :thumbsup:

 

[SLOShooter]

Just because you shoot the entire scene doesn't mean you'll get the "right" lighting, composition, yada yada. I think it'll still take someone that knows what they're doing to be in the right spot at the right time and have the right settings on whatever machine they're using. Then it will take a good, and patience, eye to go through all the data. Unless of course someone comes up with an computer program to analize pictures and pick out possible good ones. Come to think of it that wouldn't be too hard using the rule of thirds and what humans consider, well lit. Yikes!

 

[Kent Frost]

Correct, it would know longer be considered photography, but rather filmography.

Why would you do something like that just to pick out one frame? Why not make a movie?

 

[Unimaxium]

This reminds me of a strange idea that popped into my head about a week ago, and that is the use of video clips as images are. For the most part, video is exclusively for tv, the cinema, or the web, and is usually only viewed through those mediums. Photography can be viewed in a number of ways, including being printed and hung on a wall or in a gallery. What if you could make video clips that were displayed in the same way? Like hanging them on a wall for instance, especially on a flat-panel display. It might make an interesting art movement. It would be like a photograph except with the added element of time, which can be used to show motion, dimension or expression. Just short clips that looked like a photo and were composed in the same way, but simply had a timeline to them as well. It was just a strange idea that popped into my mind for no real reason.

 

[Christie Photo]

Remember the multi-media presentations? I saw one with something like 30 Ektagraphic projectors (35mm slides), 1 16mm projector, and a visa-bar from an ambulance, all synced with stereo music and voice-over. They whole deal was run by computer, using disolve units and 4 big screens. I think it was a Tony Selento (sp?) production.

 

[walter23]

And everybody will carry a small scroll around that displays moving pictures and hypertext and instead of buying print magazines or newspapers you will walk up to a newstand and select your desired magazine from a menu and your credit account will be automatically deducted the cost (tracked via the microchip in your shoulder) and the magazine will be uploaded to your scroll.

And celebrated rich artists will sell still frames that have been retouched to reproduce a charming 2005 CMOS sensor look with blown highlights and limited dynamic range.

 

[Kodan_Txips]

Well now....

You take a 3 minute event, and decide to look for the best few shots.

180 x 24 = 432 photos to look at

each photo takes ????? 5 seconds ???? to consider, select and put to one side.

Later you take the best 20 and have to really look at them for composition, focus, and so on, this takes maybe 1 minute each

So it takes at least half an hour to deconstruct a 3 minute film.

People won'y put up with that for very long. especially as if the individual photos are to be accepted as stills they will have to be very crisp and sharp, and at 24 fps this will work against their usefulness as movies.

A lot of what makes 24 fps acceptable for movies is the smearing and distortion that is incorporated into the shot - otherwise natural scenes look a lot more like animation, which appears wrong somehow.

And the cine craze of the 60s and 70s soon went away. Many people realised that amateur films were often more embarassing to watch than people's slide collections from their holidays abroad.

 

[Scott WRG Editor]

I don't think it will be much of an issue. The parameters for a good shot are different with video than they are with photography. As we all know any idiot can take a great picture once and a while but it takes a photographer to make that picture happen nearly everytime. The same holds true with video. You might capture something worthwhile but it would be a fluke. The framing would never be perfect. The exception would be if you were shooting with the still in mind and then you are just taking pictures by another means.

 

[mentos_007]

what I love in being a photographer is to catch the moment. Then you feel that you got it, you grabbed the moment and keep it only for yourself and you know that you worked pretty hard to get the shot. the method you mentioned is for me just a "fake photography". but I use simmilar method for lightnings - continuous shooting. but that's something different that's because I don't have b setting.
But recording a movie and than cutting a single frame from it wouldn't be the same...

 

[terri]

Matt's brain scares me sometimes. :mrgreen:

 

[danalec99]

This thread is actually a coincidence. The other day, one of my co-workers came to me as he was in the market for a consumer level digital camcorder. I directed him to couple of brands. While we were discussing about it, what he asked shook me. He knew digital camcorders could take still shots and was wondering if getting this particular camcorder was sufficient to take video and stills at the same time, so that he can get away from getting a digital camera. I dismissed the idea saying that the 'quality would be very bad and that he should get a dedicated camera (digital or analogue) to take still shots.
The question is, for how long can we preach about the lack of quality? For people who wants just the memories, who do not care about the lighting/composition and all the associated 'rules', a digital camcorder+camera built in to one console could be a great idea.
For the pro gang like news and sports photographers, this would be a great idea too. No more worries about missing a moment.

Robert Capa predicted the demise of still-photography when video came in to the picture. But still-photography survived, thus far. Digital technology has the potential to redefine the term photography or invent a new term for capturing images.