Not a rant - but my BIG concern

[Loupey]

For a while now I've been watching what has been, to me at least, two distinct but rapidly converging paths between the digital camera and digital video camps.

Digital cameras are getting faster (fps, writing time, buffer sizes, etc) while the digital videos are getting higher resolution with better still captures.

Is it just me or are we watching the beginning of the end to "still photography" as we know it? Three years from now, will everyone have a video camera which we will simply record a second or two of ultra high resolution video and simply pull out exactly the frame we want later to print. Forget the "decisive moment" philosophy - instead it will be the "somewhere in here" moment

I don't think it's a matter of if, just when... I just hope that all my lenses will still work with those models. Because once those paths converge, it's only going to be one path. Why is it my BIG concern? Because although it may be for the "better", I'd hate for photography (and the disciplines and skills associated with it) to become obsolete.

Am I off-base? What do you think?

[Mr Yuck]

digital video cameras are expensive! for the HDs. We're safe for now...not much of a threat from me anyway.

[livin4lax09]

I will continue with digital still photography even when the Super HD cameras find a way to be match what we have now. To me, it is the feeling of succeeding that is the most fun about photography. Digital video just isn't the same to me.

[MJS]

Oh okay, photography philosophy 101 as taught in my classroom. Photography is all aboiut freezing the time an moment for preservation. Both disciplines break down to the individual frame, controlling your exposure through speed and aperture to put in memory, on film, on hard drive, etc..., , what you want scene. A photographer sees and then uses the apporopriate tool to record that image, whether its a single, poignant moment in one frame, or a bunch of frames strung together for moving video.

That being said, creative people are always looking for the appropriate tools to capture their vision, point and shoots versus DSLR's, single chip HD versus 3 chip cams, 24 pfs/versus 30 fps, etc. For the time being at least, bigger is better in the world of digital chips. The better cameras will continue to be made to fit the bigger chips, just check out broadcast and hollywood cameras. I believe that the professionals and advanced amateurs will always gravitate towards the bigger and more specialized cameras where they won't have to compromise features for what they want, despite the similarities of the controls, that being shutter speed, aperture and sensitivity. Technology will eventually catch up enough for both camps, it will be the creative brain driving the toys that will need to keep shooting in their particular discipline and realize that its just a tool to preserve what you see in your minds eye.

I think you'll always have to compromise one way or the other with a combo camera. I believe for those wanting advanced or professional quality, seperate still and video will be the way to go for the forseeable future.

Pardon all the blather and bad grammar.

[another view]

I don't think so. Technology will always make everything better and easier (usually, anyway ) but it's that moment that people remember. The print of that moment to me is worth a lot more than the moments leading up to and after the decisive one. I've had cameras with very fast FPS rates, but I always seemed to get better results by planning carefully rather than shooting a lot in hopes that I get one good one. I'm not much of a sports photographer though...

[Chunk]

I don't think it's a huge thing to concern yourself about but then I was shooting with a K1000 when the photomags were gushing all over the the autofocus and high fps of the expensive slrs of the times. There were people then that thought that pushing the shutter release and getting a burst of photos to choose from was somehow unclean.
If it gets to a point where comparable images can be obtained from the video cameras without a huge difference in price then it will make sense to use them and we'll have some other thing to worry about.

If you want something to worry about, think of the mess we'll probably have trying to keep up with changing storage methods and media, file types, software, etc. I've already seen some storage and backup methods go obsolete and there will be much more of that as technology advances.

[Frog]

I know what you mean. More than a few times I've wathced films with such stunning photography, I've wished I could freeze on of those moments and now that is easily attainable.
I don't think still photography is on the way out in my life time though.

[Skyman]

I don't think it will happen. there are two many differences that cannot be changed between the slr and the broadcast video camera that they need to remain separate beasts. flash hot shoes and xlr microphone inputs are two that spring to mind without thinking to hard. Creatively i try not to shoot video and still on the same day as I find my work suffers. In the consumer end of the market, it is already happening with what i call the "hybrid" cams you know the ones they are either video cameras that offer a great still image or still cameras that offer impresive mpg recording. when i see a hybrid that has a great lens, records 6mp or better still images and mini dv grade avi files (none of the compressed crap that is the norm) then i might get one as a toy but i doubt this will happen as the video cameras seem to offer lower quality stills and the still cameras the compressed and inferior video and have done this for the last 5 or so years.

[freygr]

Video especially high quality video without compression is another beast. The bit rate without control bits, the formula is ( image pixel size ) * (3 color channels) * (8 bits per color channel) * (30 images per/sec) ; so a 6.1 mega pixel image stream works out at a uncompressed rate of 4.4 gig bits per second. The deeper the color channel the higher the bit rate compressed or not.

[Photo-John]

Video especially high quality video without compression is another breast.

It's another what? Keep your mind on the subject at hand please!

[freygr]

It's another what? Keep your mind on the subject at hand please!

Oops my spelling came and bit me in the behind :-( Sorry but unluckily this may not be my last Oops....

[MJS]

That would have to be in the new glamour forum.

[Loupey]

Thanks for your thoughts, guys! Perhaps I am over-thinking it a bit.

Gotta admit though - now that cameras are computers and not just boxes to hold film, it's difficult to imagine what the future holds. Each new model will bring new features and automation. By the time Canon brings out the 80D, our memories of the 10D, 20D, and 30D's will be similar to how we think about the 286/386/486 computers of the not so distant past.


I just hope they will continue to include manual override controls for us manual-types

[MJS]

Paying more for manual stinks!

[drg]

I saw this post the other day and it tickled the memory bank, and then *things happened* and I'm just now getting back to it.

First, there have been occasionally rare and hardly publicized showings where prints or scenic stills have been produced from some classic stock. I've been privileged to see large prints from Howard Hawk films and even a production still taken directly from a daily of the original Blues Brothers. That admittedly was film. There have been several local showings around N.A. over the years, if you knew where to look, local film houses will get permission to print something.

There is some fascinating camera work in the 1997 film L.A. Confidential that on a frame by frame basis that with the aid of a DVD player stands out and demonstrates that still photography was in the mind of the cinematographer. There is very effective use of DOF and backgrounds that one doesn't always associate with film. Then again, with the advent of DVD and not having to deal with the vagaries and danger to the stock of the old 'blowback' style of projector we can look at a lot more movies and realize they are using the same compositional techniques we do with still photography.

The 'movie' people are not usually as interested in stills other than for continuity and promo work as other photographers. With the advent of Video Assist, it was again a different game.

All that ancient history aside, Loupey you have brought up an interesting topic and your worst fears are already coming to pass:

http://www.sony.net/Products/SC-HP/c...featuring.html

The PDF file specifically mentions the use of the 6+mp image for still work. Many of the current crop of sensors we use in our DSLRS can ALREADY shoot video. All you really need is a 30+ frame per second rate to get decent video.

The problem is, what do you do with all that DATA ? ! ? ! Tape is currently the best solution and I know of places that are exploring it already.

We are entering into a Brave New World.

[yogestee]

Loupey,,,I can understand your concern but this is a question better posed to the major camera manufacturers...What direction are they heading in and with what gear??
IMHO Digital Video has a long way to go before it comes anywhere near the image quality Digital Still Photography has attained...As technology advancement isn't progressive advance but an arithmetical one the goal posts will keep moving forward..

Jurgen

[Loupey]

MJS - LOL! I would have been a happy camper if they made the imaging sensor on my "old" Canon 10D upgradable!

drg - thank you for the link and for the good points you made.

Jurgen - I'm sure that even the manufacturers don't have a clear picture of what the cameras 5 years from now will be able to do. Technology advances so fast - I still can't believe that my PC from my college days had a hard drive 1/100 the capacity of just one of my $19.99 CF card

[rzozaya1969]

I think that photography and video are very cool visual tools. I don't care much about video, I just like capturing moments or stills. But anyway, I don't think there's an do-all gadget that would be top quality for a nice price.

But, let's say that someone did come up with a camera that could do 30fps broadcast or top broadcast quality video and 20+Mp shots, and still be affordable, portable and have a lot of stuff for controling external flashes, syncro with this and that, etc.. This will just enhance your chances of guetting the stills or video that you want. I think this would just broaden our tools, not cut us off as photographers or video guys.

What's more important than the tool itself is the guy/gal using that tool. So if you suck taking pics with standard cameras, you'll suck too using the newer technology, and if you excel at photo taking, probably you'll excell at the new cameras. Maybe there would be a time to getting used to the 'other' discipline (being video or stills), but more probably it wouldn't be a too painfull process.

I think this is the same case as film vs digital, P&S vs DSLR/SLR, etc.. It just depend on what you want to do with the gadget. Could ergonomic be a factor? I have a DSLR and a P&S. I do a lot of mountain biking. The DSLR is faster, more easily adjusted, but it's unsuited to riding, and that's where the P&S comes in handy and it's a great camera.

Now, let's say you have the SPVC (super photo and video camera), would you shape it like a photo camera or a video camera? Both type of cameras are way different in shape, probably each is shaped better to the user's need. But if you want to have a hybrid camera, what would be best?

I don't feel threatened, it will be good whatever comes out. And if you don't like the new technology, I bet you can still use whatever you like. But in the end, the more important component in a camera is the one that's using it.

[Sebastian]

Am I off-base? What do you think?

I think "Who gives a...?"

How do technological trends keep YOU form taking still photos? Answer: they don't.

It's too easy to get caught up in feeling like we're a part of a larger whole that we have no control over. We're not part of "photography," we're "photographers." Whether we use plates coated with chemicals or HD cameras, WE are the ones going to the store, choosing and buying the equipment we use. I'm not losing sleep over zero-calorie soft drinks and the way the beverage industry is going in feat of losing my precious regular Pepsi. I suggest you don't lose any sleep over HD video or affordable 4k cameras.

[Speed]

I can see where you get that. Photography has experienced something similar with the big push toward digital.

But I don't see Photographers or still photography becoming outdated anytime soon. Technilogical gaps, price gaps, and most importantly, a different mindset between "still"photographers and videographers.

My two cents.

[Loupey]

I think "Who gives a...?"

...anyone who makes a living (or at least a substantial percentage of income) from selling photographs possibly?

Sure, the enthusiast will always be able to shoot how he/she pleases – they still sell film the last time I checked . But I’m thinking the field of photography as just another job field in the future that will be hit with significant changes and job losses.

Analogy 1: The skilled assembly line worker being replaced with robotic automation. As long as the product is built as well or better than before at a cheaper price, who cares? The skilled assembly line worker.

Analogy 2: Job-trained “engineers”. We used to write our own program codes to analyze stresses and strains on any given component. We knew where these calculations are derived from and we knew where to look for potential problems. Many so-called engineers are not really – technicians who work with purchased software which performs the analysis for them. Who cares? Degreed engineers.

So as I watch a professional sporting event and see the banks of photographers on the sidelines, each vying for “that shot” to make it into SI, I can imagine each one shooting a 2 second burst at a climax of the play and later selecting the one shot out of the 16 taken. In the future, perhaps every 4 or 5 photographers on the sideline will be replaced with 1 using a state-of-the-art hybrid camera which shoots 30 fps – each frame as high of a resolution as a 1DmkIIn.

Same scenario with nature shooters.

Technology will always make it easier to take better shots. As algorithms get better, stabilization gets better, imaging sensors get better, perhaps “Average Joe” can compete with the pros. As long as SI and Smithsonian get their shots, who cares? Professional photographers.

So in the not-so-distant future, will the most successful photographers be the richest Average Joes who can keep up paying for the latest technology? And with so many great images being churned out by so many people, who are the buyers of gallery images going to be? Will people no longer be impressed/shocked/inspired by photography as it becomes so technically simple to do?


At least for now, photographic knowledge, skill, and experience are still the biggest factors in getting a successful shot. Rich Joes cannot simply go out and buy a 600mm f/4L and expect to be instantly published. For now.

[Sebastian]

...anyone who makes a living (or at least a substantial percentage of income) from selling photographs possibly?

You should sit back for a minute and really read over what your saying. If it sounds a bit familiar it's because it's the same diatribe that's been blurted about by paranoid workers in all industries.

Let's review some fears of the past few hundred years of history in media.

The photograph did not kill painting.
Video did not kill the photograph.
Medium format did not destroy photography.
The Brownie did not destroy photography.
35mm did not destroy photography.
TV did not kill the newspaper.
The internet is not killing the newspaper, nor TV.

Do pros suffer? I know some think they will. All I know is that the ones I work with and talk with on a daily basis do one of two things, they adapt, or they go find something else to do. That's why they're pros. The reasons are their adaptability, and the fact that no matter what they're using, they MAKE BETTER PICTURES than you or I or anyone else I know, let alone some guy off the street that just happens to have enough dough to drop on a Mark III.

I've said it so many times and I'm dumb enough to keep saying: IT REALLY, REALLY, REALLY DOESN'T MATTER what you shoot with, or where technology is going. 98% of the averages Joes you worry about don't know their a$$ apart from a hole in the ground to even know what those technological gizmos do, 1% know but have no talent to utilize them, and the remainder are talented enough and could use it to become pros but don't want the hassle (iow, they're smarter than us).

Average Joe is not a threat, and changing technology is always a good thing. Be crotchety all you want, but remember that that precious 35mm SLR was put down in the same way by shooters of larger formats.

"ANYONE will be a pro!...There's no craft in that!...Shoots so fast, why even bother framing?...Spray and pray!" - Any of those sound familiar?

I get so tired of hearing and reading this same drivel over and over and over and over again. It's fine to be scared, but why do so many of us waste our time on screaming that the sky is falling instead of pursuing more productive endeavors? Nothing can stop progress, no matter how loud we scream, and the screaming takes away time and energy from doing what we love to do. If photography's days are numbered, then shouldn't we just shut the hell up and go take as many pictures as we can in the short time we have left with it?

Sorry for unloading Loupey. It's nothing personal, I have much respect for you and your work. There are just so many places I used to go to get advice that are now littered with doomsday prophets yammering on about the end of [insert item here] while ignoring history that I'm just way, way, way sick of it.

[shutterman]

"The photograph did not kill painting.
Video did not kill the photograph.
Medium format did not destroy photography.
The Brownie did not destroy photography.
35mm did not destroy photography.
TV did not kill the newspaper.
The internet is not killing the newspaper, nor TV"

True...but Video killed the Radio Star!

I just purchased a HD video camera and was thinking of the projects I would use it for and in the final product I would have stills and video together. I never once thought of taking the stills with the video camera (even though it can produce a 4mp).

Even when they come up with a great Hybrid I am sure there will still be a use for both. There is something so cool about the way you can pan and zoom over a still shot - just ask Ken Burns!

[Ronnoco]

Thanks for your thoughts, guys! Perhaps I am over-thinking it a bit.

Gotta admit though - now that cameras are computers and not just boxes to hold film, it's difficult to imagine what the future holds. Each new model will bring new features and automation. By the time Canon brings out the 80D, our memories of the 10D, 20D, and 30D's will be similar to how we think about the 286/386/486 computers of the not so distant past.


I just hope they will continue to include manual override controls for us manual-types

Well, Loupey, I shot colour film, digital and colour video before anyone here. As a matter of fact the colour video was on 2 inch reel tape. and the digital was 300 by 200 pixels on a modified floppy disk. The colour slide film was ASA 25. The first computer I used had 8K of memory with a green phosphor screen with programs on cassette tape. So I have seen a lot of changes in media technology.

The difference in video vs stills is that good video demands a considerable amount of planning, skills, equipment, and a production crew. I did script writing, producing, directing, lighting, audio, film, voice-over, live segments and editing, and believe me there is no way that an amateur without proper training can produce quality video just because he has a quality camera. I worked with a minimum of 3 and a switcher.

So, video will never replace stills, but there will be a convergence where video projectors will be used to show presentations that are a mixture of stills and short video clips. I have already done these types of presentations and they will become more common. There may be less printing and more sharing of images, video clips and presentations in electronic form through broadband or even cell phones. Currently I am sending scanned documents, photos and video clips to a lawyer for the discovery section of legal action.

Still photography will "change" by becoming less print oriented but it will not disappear and more opportunities will be open to those who can see and take advantage of the new possibilities and uses for photos. I have had great fun doing exactly that for decades.

Ronnoco