Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
Thread started 01 Oct 2013 (Tuesday) 21:52
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

I do not think video will replace photography.

 
madhatter04
Goldmember
1,930 posts
Likes: 51
Joined Oct 2006
Location: Southern California
     
Oct 03, 2013 09:20 |  #46

Well, I'd hate to say it, but technology evolves right along with the world, so whatever happens and whatever comes along, you adapt your skills or you become obsolete.


Designer // Art Director // Photographer
www.alexanderfitch.com (external link) | AlexFitchPhoto on Instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
iamascientist
Senior Member
Avatar
680 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Apr 2010
Location: Mass
     
Oct 03, 2013 09:53 |  #47

madhatter04 wrote in post #16343070 (external link)
Well, I'd hate to say it, but technology evolves right along with the world, so whatever happens and whatever comes along, you adapt your skills or you become obsolete.

False. There's no one size fits all. People still exist and make a living outside the mass market. People will pay a premium for special services, and that doesn't only apply to photography.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gjl711
"spouting off stupid things"
Avatar
55,614 posts
Likes: 2485
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas
     
Oct 03, 2013 10:30 |  #48

iamascientist wrote in post #16343146 (external link)
False. There's no one size fits all. People still exist and make a living outside the mass market. People will pay a premium for special services, and that doesn't only apply to photography.

That's true but if you look at the total of the market size, it will have shrunk. People still make a living at blacksmithing but no where near the level it was 100 years ago. The point is that the activity, whatever it may be will never go completely away, but it's ability to support a large number will significantly decrease and as time goes on it will continue to decrease. Bottom line is if you are one of the few who can make a living providing a special service, that's wonderful but there will be many others who will not and will be forced to adapt or die out.


Not sure why, but call me JJ.
I used to hate math but then I realised decimals have a point.
.
::Flickr:: (external link)
::Gear::

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
iamascientist
Senior Member
Avatar
680 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Apr 2010
Location: Mass
     
Oct 03, 2013 11:12 |  #49

gjl711 wrote in post #16343230 (external link)
That's true but if you look at the total of the market size, it will have shrunk. People still make a living at blacksmithing but no where near the level it was 100 years ago. The point is that the activity, whatever it may be will never go completely away, but it's ability to support a large number will significantly decrease and as time goes on it will continue to decrease. Bottom line is if you are one of the few who can make a living providing a special service, that's wonderful but there will be many others who will not and will be forced to adapt or die out.

Yes you've just described specialty/niche markets, but I love how you relate everything to blacksmithing, as if its that obscure.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gjl711
"spouting off stupid things"
Avatar
55,614 posts
Likes: 2485
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas
     
Oct 03, 2013 12:28 |  #50

iamascientist wrote in post #16343316 (external link)
Yes you've just described specialty/niche markets, but I love how you relate everything to blacksmithing, as if its that obscure.

:) I have a good friend who is a blacksmith. His business has been doing great and getting better. He says it's because his competition is getting old and retiring or dying off. :)


Not sure why, but call me JJ.
I used to hate math but then I realised decimals have a point.
.
::Flickr:: (external link)
::Gear::

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gjl711
"spouting off stupid things"
Avatar
55,614 posts
Likes: 2485
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas
     
Oct 03, 2013 12:30 |  #51

But it's also a great example of technology replacement. Not that long ago every town had one and most had several. Today you might find one per county.


Not sure why, but call me JJ.
I used to hate math but then I realised decimals have a point.
.
::Flickr:: (external link)
::Gear::

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tonylong
...winded
Avatar
54,657 posts
Gallery: 60 photos
Likes: 546
Joined Sep 2007
Location: Vancouver, WA USA
     
Oct 04, 2013 01:12 |  #52

Hmm, interesting question, and I don't have a "definitive" answer!

To me, it would revolve around the question "will we be able to with video 'capture the moment' in a way that can be "reproduced" in a "fine art" print, and from what I've seen, the answer has been "no". But in the future? I dunno...!


Tony
Two Canon cameras (5DC, 30D), three Canon lenses (24-105, 100-400, 100mm macro)
Tony Long Photos on PBase (external link)
Wildlife project pics here (external link), Biking Photog shoots here (external link), "Suburbia" project here (external link)! Mount St. Helens, Mount Hood pics here (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Clean ­ Gene
Goldmember
1,014 posts
Joined Nov 2010
     
Oct 04, 2013 01:59 |  #53

benji25 wrote in post #16340666 (external link)
Do you know what it took to make a video 15 years ago? You had to buy a video only camera, a Mini DV tape and then all you could do is show it to people in person or send them a copy of the tape.

Now I can take a video, upload it and broadcast it to millions in less than a minute. That coupled with faster devices and faster internet means people can consume a lot more video. I bet people said what you did about newspapers. "Oh, it is the same thing, just digital."

Well when was the last time you read a newspaper?


If I buy a real newspaper, I'll skim the headlines until I find one that catches my interest, then I'll read the article. If I'm looking up news online, I'll skim the headlines until I see one that catches my interest, then I'll read the article.

Still photography and video are a very different matter. Imagine for a moment that I am exposed to one or more photos that I have no particular interest in. Absent something like a museum exhibit or a critique (in which I feel obligated to at least give every image a chance), the sheer number of photographs that I'm exposed to guarantees that most of them are just gonna get a quick 2 or 3 second glance, at most. If that photo is trying to communicate something to me (this burger is delicious, this car is badass, etc), then it'd damn sure better be able to do it in a couple of seconds. Otherwise, I'm moving on because I've got $hit to do and I don't have time to be standing around properly appreciating every photograph I see.

Now imagine that still photography got "replaced" by video. Those videos had better be REALLY short and REALLY effective at getting my attention within the span of a couple of seconds. Because failure to do that means that I'm not watching those videos either. Even if they do somehow manage to grab my attention, I'm STILL gonna stop watching them if the video lasts more than a couple of seconds, because I'm busy and I don't have time to be standing around watching videos all day.

Don't get me wrong, I love video and it has its place, but there's no way in hell it's ever going to "replace" photography. I can see a photograph in a fraction of a second, and then decide whether or not it's worth my time to invest in it further. By contrast, seeing a video requires an investment in time right from the beginning since videos actually take time to watch. A higher investment on the part of the viewer means that (all things being equal, and it's videos that are plastered everywhere instead of photographs), viewers are going to be more likely to just pass right by the $hit and not watch it. And when that's the case, it's counterproductive. Why would I fund the creation of a video that I know that absolutely no one is gonna watch? How's that gonna get my point across or help sell a product? At least with a photograph, there's more of a chance that people at least saw it and identified the product or statement before then ignoring it and going about their daily business.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
airfrogusmc
I'm a chimper. There I said it...
36,502 posts
Gallery: 147 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 6115
Joined May 2007
Location: Oak Park, Illinois
     
Oct 04, 2013 06:37 |  #54

gjl711 wrote in post #16343467 (external link)
But it's also a great example of technology replacement. Not that long ago every town had one and most had several. Today you might find one per county.

But painting hasn't been replaced by photography
and B&W hasn't been replaced by color
and film hasn't been replaced by digital
and still hasn't been replaced by video

All are different and all still have a place.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Owain ­ Shaw
Some of my best friends are people.
Avatar
2,394 posts
Gallery: 63 photos
Likes: 1192
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Valencia, Spain.
     
Oct 04, 2013 06:53 |  #55

I think I agree with the majority, that video will impact some markets and applications for photography but I think the mediums will co-exists.

In advertising, for example, there are already videographic bill-boards - however, these rely on your target staying still long enough to watch it - in places like airports and train platforms you have a captive market to an extent but new technologies and medias provide this market with an increasing number of distractions from your advert as well. Roadside adverts would be pretty difficult and/or dangerous to watch whilst driving, so those will always rely on photography.

Video art is a new medium in some galleries, but I don't see it replacing photography - here it will be a similar situation to painting and photography, the two will co-exists with skilled artists working in either medium showcasing their work. This may mean less space for photography in galleries, but it won't disappear - photography certainly hasn't pushed painting out of the National Portrait Gallery and painting is still a prominent discipline in almost every major gallery. Of course, a photographer preparing an exhibition doesn't (usually) go and photograph in an afternoon - but video requires compiling and producing lots of footage, with moving image complicating the matter of getting everything right throughout the whole shot rather than for a single moment (not always easy either), which then needs to be edited and re-worked, along with sound and/or music where it is used. Skilled video artists will put in the time and effort, and money necessary, the same as skilled photographers do - but I don't see masses defecting to video in place of photography. How many of us have a DSLR with video capabilities and how many of us use these functions? The creative process is also very different, producing a video involves thinking in a very different way to producing a photograph or series of photographs

In the home, I also struggle to picture flat-screen video displays replacing family photos or holiday snaps (as someone said, almost certainly the most commonly displayed types of images) for reasons such as the looping of the video and needing to stop to view it rather than being able to take it in in an instant, as well as pause over it for longer, as you do with a photograph. A video also lacks something of the timelessness of a photograph - despite being intrinsically of a specific moment, a photograph can also take us back to a wider section of time - our childhood, school, university. A video can do that, but it even more intrinsically depicts one event or happening. A single photograph can be a very powerful thing.

Another reason is editing. Digital has seen a huge increase in the number of pictures taken but a massive percentage decrease in those printed - we now have to do this ourselves, selecting what we print rather than selection what we keep from a mass of prints. Video would require this as well as perhaps even more time spent compiling and editing - skills you need to learn. (Of course, on a photography forum, most of us here spend hours editing and processing images - we may even print them - but the majority of people do not.)

My field of work is theatre photography - most companies that want a professional video of the show, still want professional photographs of it. Many companies that want professional photographs, don't have professional video. The market is still evolving, as are the needs of the clients. Publicity is still done through flyers and posters, something where video can't really touch photography, illustration exists alongside it still. Without widespread video advertising, larger productions are also still using either photography of illustration based adverts. On the internet, photographs can be viewed and disseminated quickly - but they also don't give too much away and by freezing only one moment, can create mystery and intrigue that seeing the moment carried through to its conclusion would remove. Like with documentary photography, a good photograph can still encapsulate the story and the narrative, or at least enough of it. In theatre, also a visual medium to be viewed over time, a video almost captures too much - photography captures but one moment, but leaves the whole thing to be viewed and enjoyed by the viewer for the first time. Of course, video is rarely used to show people the whole show, it's used like a movie trailer - and this is increasing, but as someone entering the photography market in a new country, I am finding myself able to make a demand for my work.

Skilled video producers will find work, possibly increasing amounts of it, as the technology and surrounding technologies improve and grow - but I believe skilled photographers will continue to find work also and I don't think we'll all need to jump ship to video, but some of our practice and work will need to evolve or change to continue to shape and meet demands.

In conclusion, Libya is a land of contrast ...


| New website. (external link) |
| Gear | Flickr (external link) |

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gjl711
"spouting off stupid things"
Avatar
55,614 posts
Likes: 2485
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas
     
Oct 04, 2013 07:05 |  #56

airfrogusmc wrote in post #16345231 (external link)
But painting hasn't been replaced by photography
and B&W hasn't been replaced by color
and film hasn't been replaced by digital
and still hasn't been replaced by video

All are different and all still have a place.

I agree, all are different and have a place, but why do you always assume that it must be replaced, that the other technology will go away and the new take it's place. It is possible for things to fall somewhere in the middle.

At one time painting commanded 100% of the image market but a new technology came along, greatly expanded the market for images and painting as it existed had to change and gained little, if any, of the newly expanded market. So as a percentage of all images created painting is a tiny piece. Sure people still paint, most do it for fun, kids love to paint, and a scant few when compared to all of the image creators, actually make a living doing so. But painting will never again be the market it once was supporting a sizable population.

Same with B&W . At one time B&W images commanded 100% of the market. Every image taken was a B&W image. Today it's a fraction of the total image market used in specific circumstances for specific reasons. A new technology came along, greatly expanded the market and the old was pushed back to a niche.

Somewhere down the road I can easily see video doing the same thing. It may not happen in a year, or five, or ten, but some technology will come along making video much easier to display and I can see a day where most images could be short video clips. We are sort of seeing the signs of it already. Many if not most images are now being displayed on some form of electronic device instead of paper, many slide shows are using pseudo-motion to give them a video appeal, flat panel devices are getting cheaper and bigger, many people today carry a device capable of displaying images in their pockets, and more. Don't look at the capability of video as it is today, it's still in it's technological infancy. But it has the potential to greatly expand the image market and i can see a day where still images will take their place alongside painting and B&W images.


Not sure why, but call me JJ.
I used to hate math but then I realised decimals have a point.
.
::Flickr:: (external link)
::Gear::

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Shake ­ N ­ Vac
Senior Member
520 posts
Likes: 93
Joined Sep 2012
Location: UK
     
Oct 04, 2013 07:50 |  #57

For me I enjoy photos more than video because looking back through holiday snaps, wedding pictures or new born pictures brings back those memories and open discussion remembering that day. I enjoy slowly remembering the details and remembering something new each time we look through the photos. Video for me is not as satisfying as it just shows you exaclty what it was like, second by second and takes away some of the magic of remeniscing but maybe thats just me. Also I don't mind photos of myself (though not too many as I do hate having my photo taken) but can't stand video of myself and usually end up muting it :)


Canon 6D / Canon 70-200 IS ii / Sigma 100 Macro f2.8 / 50mm f1.8
www.sm-wedding-photography.co.uk (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sandpiper
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,171 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 50
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Merseyside, England
     
Oct 04, 2013 10:00 |  #58

gjl711 wrote in post #16345263 (external link)
At one time painting commanded 100% of the image market but a new technology came along, greatly expanded the market for images and painting as it existed had to change and gained little, if any, of the newly expanded market. So as a percentage of all images created painting is a tiny piece. Sure people still paint, most do it for fun, kids love to paint, and a scant few when compared to all of the image creators, actually make a living doing so. But painting will never again be the market it once was supporting a sizable population.


I don't think that is really the case though. Painting never supported a "sizable population" of artists in the days before photography came along. There were very few people who could afford a painting, the vast majority of the population were just trying to keep a roof over their heads and food on the table, it was primarily the rich merchants, industrialists and gentry that had the money to pay for artists. We think about "struggling artists" as the stereotype for a good reason, very, very few artists made much from it. Even the ones we now treat as the old masters often lived very frugally, were always struggling for money and often sold very little of their work. Van Gogh would be a good example, very few people had even heard of him, let alone paid for his work, when he was alive.

Yes, there were some portrait painters who made a living from it, but very, very few. Compare that to the modern world, where most big towns and cities have art galleries selling paintings to a wide group of art lovers, even the lowliest of half decent painters are selling examples of their work, either through galleries or direct to the public, often through their local art groups annual exhibition in the village hall. My brother paints for a hobby, he is good but nothing special, he doesn't make a living at it, but has sold a decent number of paintings. In fact, he has probably sold more paintings than many of the great masters did in their lifetimes. I am pretty sure he has sold more than Van Gogh ever did (in his lifetime), and I wouldn't place their skill levels as remotely in the same league.

Good artists today can make a very good living from their paintings and there are far more artists making a living from painting now, than there were 200 years ago before photography came along. Paintings are, as you say, a much smaller part of the overall market now, but that market for images is almost infinitely bigger than 200 years ago when only the very rich could afford any images at all. Now, almost the entire population of the first world can afford to pay for images, and art collectors massively outnumber the few rich industrialists and gentry that were the market back then.

The fact is, I see paintings for sale all over the place. My local hairdresser displays and sells them in the waiting area, local cafes also sell local scenes, by local artists, to the tourists. Paintings sell in large numbers in the modern world, sure those numbers are small compared to the numbers of photographs that are sold, but they are way above any time in the past.

Painting is flourishing more now than at any time in history, simply because the general standard of living has risen to the point where almost anybody can afford to appreciate, and buy, artworks at some level.

gjl711 wrote in post #16345263 (external link)
Same with B&W . At one time B&W images commanded 100% of the market. Every image taken was a B&W image. Today it's a fraction of the total image market used in specific circumstances for specific reasons. A new technology came along, greatly expanded the market and the old was pushed back to a niche.

This is, of course, true.

However, it isn't the same thing as "painting v photography" or "photography v video". In those instances, we are really looking at two different forms of work and done by different people. A great painter does not necessarily make a good photographer, the same goes for a photographer becoming a videographer. If you want to change from one to the other, you need to learn a whole new discipline, purchase expensive new equipment and learn how to master it.

With B&W v colour though, they are both "photography" and are capable of being performed by the same person, they just need to shove a different film in the camera and "hey presto" they become a "colour photographer". The skill set is essentially the same, you use exactly the same equipment in essentially the same way, you don't even need to change your camera to keep up with the technology, just load it with a colour film.

Yes, I appreciate that there are some slight differences with shooting and processing them. With mono you need to think more about tone control to separate colours, maybe using coloured filters to alter the tones when you shoot, printing is slightly different too, for the same reason. However, I would say that shooting colour is the simpler task, so is very easy to adapt to. Nobody was at risk of being pushed into a niche by new technology, mono photographers didn't get pushed out by those who shot colour. It was the same people in both cases, and many of them shot both side by side. Back in the 1980s I was typically carting around at least 4 SLRs, loaded with different films (and usually one of those, at least, had a B&W film in it) so that I was ready for whatever I wanted to shoot and had the film I considered most suitable to hand, for that subject and the light available.

We think of Ansel Adams as a "black and white" photographer, but that is not true, he was a "photographer". He also shot colour landscapes for around 40 of his 50 years as a photographer, alongside black and white. He used colour for many of his commercial jobs, as well as for work for magazines. He preferred mono work for his more personal shots because, as an artist, he felt less constricted and could manipulate the image more in the darkroom.

Ansel was never pushed out by colour photography, he was happy to use colour film when that is what was required. Colour or mono, is no different than any other choice of technique when producing images, such as HDR perhaps, it is simply a choice the photographer has.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
airfrogusmc
I'm a chimper. There I said it...
36,502 posts
Gallery: 147 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 6115
Joined May 2007
Location: Oak Park, Illinois
     
Oct 04, 2013 10:21 |  #59

With B&W v colour though, they are both "photography" and are capable of being performed by the same person, they just need to shove a different film in the camera and "hey presto" they become a "colour photographer". The skill set is essentially the same, you use exactly the same equipment in essentially the same way, you don't even need to change your camera to keep up with the technology, just load it with a colour film.

This is just not true. It takes very different vision and different ways of seeing to be a great color or great B&W photographer.


Adams did some color but its not what he considered his serious work. The reason why is control. He shot B&W large format zone system because of the control he got from the zone. Because of different development times of the negatives to place tones of grays in areas that correspond with the zones that were the way he saw the scene, which in many cases was much different from it was in reality, he used the zone system which requires changing negative development times that were arrived at through a series of technical tests.

With color film you do not have that kind of control. If you start changing negative development times you start getting sever uncorrectable color shifts. Many zone system photographers considered color as a barbaric process because of that lack of control. Adams of course would never have said something like that but for the work he considered his serious work he was a B&W, large format, zone system photographer. And the zone system takes a much different technical approach than color.

Now with digital its hard to say what Adams would be doing now B&W or color but with the ability of color to now extend the range and to place zones the way he would see them in his minds eye I think he would have come up with a zone system for color and B&W digital. He saw in B&W. He even wrote about it some. With these new advances in B&W digital Leica M Monochrom and some of the digital medium and large format native B&W backs he might just be shooting a phase one large format B&W digital back on his Deardorff. We'll never know.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
airfrogusmc
I'm a chimper. There I said it...
36,502 posts
Gallery: 147 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 6115
Joined May 2007
Location: Oak Park, Illinois
     
Oct 04, 2013 10:23 |  #60

"but why do you always assume that it must be replaced,"

Title of the tread
I do not think video will replace photography

I don't think it will replace it either. It can't because they are very different mediums. I think I said that early on in this thread.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

5,397 views & 0 likes for this thread
I do not think video will replace photography.
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is dsk26894
998 guests, 346 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.