I do not think video will replace photography.

I have heard many times that people think video is replacing photography because of programs like Vine and such. However, in my personal opinion this helps photography - or the good photographers (I am not one). Here is why.

We live in a world of instant gratification. I don't think I really need to explain why. And here is the crux of my argument - what is quicker than a picture? Nothing! it occurs at the speed of light when someone views it. Therefore it is the most instantly gratifying thing ever.

There is a caveat however - you must be able to tell the story of the video in one frame. This is where my mention of "skilled photographers" comes in. Only the ones who can capture raw emotion, story and context in a single frame will be relevant. Everyone else will fall by the wayside. If I can understand the context and emotion in .000004 seconds by seeing a pictrue as oppsed to watching a 30 second video then I would much rather see the picture.

Thoughts? Obviously in some situations videos will succeed - sports higlights and other things that can't be captured in a single frame.

I've got to agree with you, but there are a lot of people who say this.

I reckon it will go alongside photography rather than replace it

I've never heard of Vine. Does that make me a photographer?

joeseph wrote in post #16340165
I've never heard of Vine. Does that make me a photographer?

It means that you are not a tomato.

joeseph wrote in post #16340165
I've never heard of Vine. Does that make me a photographer?

I'm a better photographer after a couple of Vines......

What's been said over the years:

photography will replace painting

color will replace B&W

digital will replace film

video will replace photography (heard that in the 1980s)

Heres something to think about and reasons why video will not replace still photography.

They are very different and require very different skill's and vision.
The one thing that still photography does that no other art form does is freeze a moment in time. Still photography is by it's very nature abstract because that is not how we as humans experience life.

So the question, because they are very different, how can video replace still photography? The answer, it can't replace it.

Why would anyone in this day and age even consider that video would somehow make photography obsolete? Photography has survived despite the availability of video for decades - just because video is now digital doesn't mean anything has changed. They're two completely different mediums.

The only thing that the availability of digital equipment has changed is the number of people using the gear - and that applies to both video and photography.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #16340321
What's been said over the years:

photography will replace painting

color will replace B&W

digital will replace film

video will replace photography (heard that in the 1980s)

Heres something to get to think about and reasons why video will not replace still photography.

They are very different and require very different skill's and vision.
The one thing that still photography does that no other art form does is freeze a moment in time. Still photography is by it's very nature abstract because that is not how we as humans experience life.

So the question, because they are very different, how can video replace still photography? The answer, it can't replace it.

Exactly; and as you noted, video is not exactly a new challenge. 'Moving pictures' have had more than a century to displace photography, but this hasn't occurred because they are two different mediums. Just because video and photography deal with the visual does not place them in some type of zero-sum struggle for recognition.

Also, photography's relevancy is not dependent on its ability to "capture raw emotion, story and context in a single frame," because seldom has photography ever been able to convey a story or context unless assisted by clarifying captions. Likewise, video can roll on for hours without providing proper context, as frequently noted during live news coverage of developing incidents.

In any case, photography and video are two different instruments providing different means of expression or documentation. Coexistence between the two has been going on for decades, and no reason exists why one should continue at the expense of the other.

sjones wrote in post #16340381
Exactly; and as you noted, video is not exactly a new challenge. 'Moving pictures' have had more than a century to displace photography, but this hasn't occurred because they are two different mediums. Just because video and photography deal with the visual does not place them in some type of zero-sum struggle for recognition.

Also, photography's relevancy is not dependent on its ability to "capture raw emotion, story and context in a single frame," because seldom has photography ever been able to convey a story or context unless assisted by clarifying captions. Likewise, video can roll on for hours without providing proper context, as frequently noted during live news coverage of developing incidents.

In any case, photography and video are two different instruments providing different means of expression or documentation. Coexistence between the two has been going on for decades, and no reason exists why one should continue at the expense of the other.

++++1

airfrogusmc wrote in post #16340321
What's been said over the years:

photography will replace painting

color will replace B&W

digital will replace film

video will replace photography (heard that in the 1980s)
...

You really can't have this discussion without taking timeframe into the picture. For instance, photography has significantly changes painting and pushed it into a nitch market. The activity still occurs but for different reasons and at a different market saturation than it did say 200 years ago.

Same with color replacing B/W. At one time B/W was all there was and it had 100% of the photography market. Today it has been pushed back into a niche as well still used but very differently than say 75 years ago.

Video will at some point do the same to stills. At some point in the future video will command the vast majority of the market and stills will be there as the niche along with painting and B/W.

sjones wrote in post #16340381
Exactly; and as you noted, video is not exactly a new challenge. 'Moving pictures' have had more than a century to displace photography, but this hasn't occurred because they are two different mediums. Just because video and photography deal with the visual does not place them in some type of zero-sum struggle for recognition. ...

Isn't a lot of this also due to the fact that there are not easy, cheap display devices? Once flat panels become so cheap that we can start hanging them on the walls, things might change.

benji25 wrote in post #16339741
We live in a world of instant gratification. I don't think I really need to explain why. And here is the crux of my argument - what is quicker than a picture? Nothing! it occurs at the speed of light when someone views it. Therefore it is the most instantly gratifying thing ever.

There is a caveat however - you must be able to tell the story of the video in one frame. This is where my mention of "skilled photographers" comes in. Only the ones who can capture raw emotion, story and context in a single frame will be relevant. Everyone else will fall by the wayside. If I can understand the context and emotion in .000004 seconds by seeing a pictrue as oppsed to watching a 30 second video then I would much rather see the picture.

where do photo albums (either electronic or physical) fit into this equation? neither are instant and both often take longer than 30 seconds to view.

gjl711 wrote in post #16340397
You really can't have this discussion without taking timeframe into the picture. For instance, photography has significantly changes painting and pushed it into a nitch market. The activity still occurs but for different reasons and at a different market saturation than it did say 200 years ago.

Same with color replacing B/W. At one time B/W was all there was and it had 100% of the photography market. Today it has been pushed back into a niche as well still used but very differently than say 75 years ago.

Video will at some point do the same to stills. At some point in the future video will command the vast majority of the market and stills will be there as the niche along with painting and B/W.

Painting is still prolific. Yes, the importance of painting as the primary means of illustration changed dramatically with the advent of photography, but in the overall scheme, I would not consider painting a niche pursuit anymore than I would consider learning to play the piano. Paintings are not a rare sighting, not at all.

If anything, black & white has resurged with the introduction of digital due to the ease of switching between the two options. Yes, color became the predominant choice, but it did not replace black & white.

You are thinking in terms of the commercial, not overall creation or use. And even being rendered into a 'niche' category does not equate to being replaced. Again, paintings and black and white photographs don't require a long hard search to discover.

Video is time consuming, and this will always limit its function in relation to photography. I will not be placing any videos on my walls, but paintings or photographs, you bet. Two different mediums.

gjl711 wrote in post #16340397
You really can't have this discussion without taking timeframe into the picture. For instance, photography has significantly changes painting and pushed it into a nitch market. The activity still occurs but for different reasons and at a different market saturation than it did say 200 years ago.

I'd say that painting is not only just as widespread as it was 200 years ago - it's even more widespread; if you're talking in terms of people having their portraits painted, this was never a mass product, as only the wealthy could afford them. The same goes for painting today - high art and bespoke portraiture generally cater to a wealthy demographic. However, unlike in times past, there now exist huge markets for less personal painting, like the kinds of paintings used to decorate hotels, restaurants, etc. One of my sisters is a full time painter, and she does a lot of this kind of work, which didn't really exist at that scale 200 years ago. In addition, the affordable availability of easy-to-use paints like acrylics has opened painting up to a massive market of hobby painters too, which, once again, didn't exist to nearly the same extent in the past.

gjl711 wrote in post #16340397
You really can't have this discussion without taking timeframe into the picture. For instance, photography has significantly changes painting and pushed it into a nitch market. The activity still occurs but for different reasons and at a different market saturation than it did say 200 years ago.

Same with color replacing B/W. At one time B/W was all there was and it had 100% of the photography market. Today it has been pushed back into a niche as well still used but very differently than say 75 years ago.

Video will at some point do the same to stills. At some point in the future video will command the vast majority of the market and stills will be there as the niche along with painting and B/W.

There is so much wrong with this I don't know where to start.

Photography did change painting but didn't push it into a niche market. Painting, as an art form, is just as alive today as it was 200 years ago, maybe even more so. This is going to be very short and a bit shallow because of space and time issues.

If you look at the history of art many historians believe the invention of photography changed painting as an art form. The first photograph was made in 1827 and it was becoming more prevalent by the 1860.

Some believe impressionism happened because suddenly you had a camera capable of reproducing, in fine detail, things that an artists hand could not. This then, instead of killing painting or pushing it into a niche, forced it to do what it does best. Capture the world the way the artist truly sees it. Thus impressionism was born.

For photography to become a valid art form it had to move beyond pictorial photography. That was photographs that were trying to imitate paintings. Thus the straight photography movement. Straight photography embraced the things that were unique to photography and what photograph does best. It captures a moment in time and does it with a clarity that is only photographic.

Photography didn't kill painting because painting and photography are very different. Color didn't kill B&W because they are very different and video hasn't and wont kill still photography because they are very different art forms. Digital hasn't killed film and none of these have been pushed into niche's.

Digital photography is still looking for it's true voice and it will be for some time. It took still film photography 80 something years to find it's voice.