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.

 
sandpiper
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,170 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 49
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Merseyside, England
     
Oct 04, 2013 11:00 |  #61

airfrogusmc wrote in post #16345633 (external link)
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 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 say the scene, which in many cases was much different from it was in reality.

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.

Yes, and I mentioned most of that in my post, but you didn't quote that part !

I did say that Ansel preferred B&W as being more artistic because he could manipulate it more etc., etc. and that he used it for his erious work, whilst colour was used for commercial jobs and magazine work. I did also point out that tone control is more important in B&W etc.

But thank you for pointing that out to to me, in case I hadn't understood what I wrote.

My point was simply that "colour replacing B&W" is different because a photographer can switch to colour if that is what the client wants (as Ansel did) by simply changing film and a relatively slight adaptation of technique. This is far different to the requirement for a painter to switch to photography if a client wants his portrait photographed instead of painted.

I quite agree that as an artistic medium B&W is different to colour, but we have referred to "paintings" as a lump, not watercolour, oil, acrylic, tempera, gouache, or impressionist, realist, cubist etc. If we are referring to "painters" as a group, without microdividing them, surely "photographers" are a group without subdividing into their preferred artistic medium?

My point still holds. When colour was taking over from mono, then any photographer could accomodate that easily, if they so wish. When the wedding photography business shifted over from all B&W to mostly colour, in the years after WW2, photographers could adapt by simply switching film (we aren't talking about great individual works of art here, just recording somebody's day with good photographs. This is not done as easily if the wedding market were to switch to wanting just video and not stills. The photographer would need to learn new techniques, new skills and get new equipment.

I agree with what you are saying, as I have agreed with other things you have said in this thread. However, you miss my point as I pointed out the differences you mention, but that is only relevant in an "art" context. For work where the paying public wants colour shots, for weddings, portraits, etc. then any good photographer can adapt easily enough to that market. That is not the same as saying they will like it as much for their personal "art". I did also mention that it is easier to adapt from B&W to colour than vice versa, for the reasons you point out.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
airfrogusmc
I'm a chimper. There I said it...
35,793 posts
Gallery: 138 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 4531
Joined May 2007
Location: Oak Park, Illinois
     
Oct 04, 2013 11:16 |  #62

I just shot an all B&W annual report and the commercial world still uses B&W quite a bit. I know that so many think when talking about professional work on POTN it's wedding/portraits. But there is so much more to the pro world than that especially when you start talking full time. I do have a friend that only shoots very high end B&W weddings (film) and he's booked trough 2015.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
HappySnapper90
Cream of the Crop
5,145 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Aug 2008
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
     
Oct 05, 2013 10:08 |  #63

It is being a serious competitor. More and more news sources are using video instead of pictures. Most news items on espn.com have a video of a person orating the story along with the text below.

In the past, why photos over video? It was more convenient. Now video is easy, as easy as digital photos are. Everyone carries an HD video camera in their pocket in their iphone.

And for personal memories. It'd be far greater to show video of their great grandfather telling jokes or how he was when he was 20 rather than a posed photo captured here and there. Videos bring people to life.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ Reichner
"I am a little creepy"
Avatar
12,606 posts
Gallery: 142 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 3193
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Omak, in north-central Washington state, USA
     
Oct 05, 2013 12:35 |  #64

I think that video and still photography will become more intwined with one another.

Will video completely replace still photography? Of course not. But it will replace it, to some extent - just like the use of color photography has replaced some of the use of black and white photography. Or how digital photography has replaced a lot of the use of film photography.

Will video replace, or displace, much of/some of the still photography that is currently being done? Yes. In fact, I think it already has.

All it takes is for one person to shoot video in one instance where previously he/she would have shot stills - then you can say that video replaced still photography.

I know a photographer - a full-time wildlife and nature photographer - who has shot stills for his entire adult life. Last year, he bought his first still camera that was also capable of shooting full HD video. One morning, a nice Whitetail buck was too far away to make for good stills, even with the 600mm lens this photographer was using. So, he decided to use the video function instead. He started shooting video as the buck fed . . . then, the buck got a whiff of a hot doe's scent, and took off in pursuit, at a dead run. This photographer captured it all on video. He showed me the video of the running deer later that day. He said that without the video, he would have captured stills that would have been lousy, due to the distance involved and the fact that the deer would be so small in the frame. But with video, the distance was actually an asset, because instead of trying to capture fine detail, it was able to capture the action and motion. In this instance, video did replace still photography. So, one could accurately say that video has already replaced still photogrpahy. But that doesn't mean that it has entirely replaced still photography - just like color has not entirely replaced black & white, or digital has not entirely replaced film.

I think that if we use proper semantics, we could more accurately sum this debate up by saying, "Video has replaced still photography, at least in some instances. But it has not, and is not likely to, completely replace still photography.

Any sort of blanket statement on this topic is likely to be inaccurate, therefore it is important to qualify any statements we make about this issue, to ensure that what we say - and the way we word it - is accurate. If someone says, "video has not replaces still photography", and I can provide one instance in which it has replaced still photography, then I have proven the statement to be wrong. If someone says, "video has not entirely and completely replaced still photography, then all I can do is to agree, as that would be an accurate statement. Let's be careful with the way we word our statements, so that we will never be inaccurate.


"Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "moot point", NOT "mute point".

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
airfrogusmc
I'm a chimper. There I said it...
35,793 posts
Gallery: 138 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 4531
Joined May 2007
Location: Oak Park, Illinois
     
Oct 05, 2013 13:09 |  #65

THe problem lies at what they both are. A still photograph is a usually a fraction of a second and is foreign to our actual life experience. Video and motion pictures are more how we as humans experience life. There is a real art into finding the proper moment. There is also a real art into capturing meaningful moving images but they are and will always be very different and because of that difference one can't replace the other.

As has been said by many of the really great photographers of the past, what makes still photograph important is the way it is unlike any other art form. It actually freezes a moment in time. That moment than can be looked at, debated, contemplated in the same way a painting can be and should be. Motion moves through those moments.

It's about the mystery and the unsaid that makes still photography what it is. It's the images that move beyond the obvious, beyond the noun, beyond what a moving image or a painting or a sculpture can do. It's sometimes about what is not seen. These things go into what still photography is and why it can't be replaced.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
OhLook
Spiderwoman
Avatar
17,537 posts
Gallery: 71 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 4727
Joined Dec 2012
Location: California: SF Bay Area
     
Oct 05, 2013 16:01 |  #66

airfrogusmc wrote in post #16348195 (external link)
As has been said by many of the really great photographers of the past, what makes still photograph important is the way it is unlike any other art form. It actually freezes a moment in time.

Painting and sculpture also portray a moment in time.

There's "Nude Descending a Staircase," but it's an exception.


PRONOUN ADVISORY: OhLook is a she. | A FEW CORRECT SPELLINGS: lens, aperture, amateur, hobbyist, per se, raccoon, whoa, more so (2 wds.), shoo-in | IMAGE EDITING OK

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
airfrogusmc
I'm a chimper. There I said it...
35,793 posts
Gallery: 138 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 4531
Joined May 2007
Location: Oak Park, Illinois
     
Oct 05, 2013 17:08 |  #67

OhLook wrote in post #16348507 (external link)
Painting and sculpture also portray a moment in time.

There's "Nude Descending a Staircase," but it's an exception.

Duchamps painting and any painting or sculpture are mans interpretation of frozen moment but a photograph is the only medium that actually freezes it.

Thus the way painters would paint horses running was found to be false by Mubridges Galloping Horse photos. The camera and a photograph finally could freeze the moment thus demonstrating the way the were painted for centuries and what artists believed was correct was indeed incorrect.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
benji25
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
1,009 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 90
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Twin Cities
     
Oct 05, 2013 22:50 |  #68

airfrogusmc wrote in post #16348607 (external link)
Duchamps painting and any painting or sculpture are mans interpretation of frozen moment but a photograph is the only medium that actually freezes it.

Thus the way painters would paint horses running was found to be false by Mubridges Galloping Horse photos. The camera and a photograph finally could freeze the moment thus demonstrating they way the were painted for centuries and what artists believed was correct was indeed incorrect.

is a video not thousands of pictures a second?


Website (external link)
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
OhLook
Spiderwoman
Avatar
17,537 posts
Gallery: 71 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 4727
Joined Dec 2012
Location: California: SF Bay Area
     
Oct 05, 2013 22:57 |  #69

benji25 wrote in post #16349130 (external link)
is a video not thousands of pictures a second?

Not nearly as many as thousands. Yes, a video is made of a series of still frames, but the viewer doesn't perceive it that way.


PRONOUN ADVISORY: OhLook is a she. | A FEW CORRECT SPELLINGS: lens, aperture, amateur, hobbyist, per se, raccoon, whoa, more so (2 wds.), shoo-in | IMAGE EDITING OK

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

4,817 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 Gaspedal21
806 guests, 401 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.